Ethical Question

[SEVERUSMAX]

There's another reason as well, which is the belief on the sub/slave half that the master/dom has their *best interests* at heart. The sub *wants* someone to control them, and the Master wants to control. The Dom actually does a lot of work and has a lot of responsibility. He/she has to literally think for both of them.

Compare this to involuntary slavery where you can literally work the slaves to death. They are sub-human and you don't have to care about them. It's better for business if you do, keep them healthy and fed, but you don't have to. You don't have to give them a day of rest, or sick days, or good food or anything. If they die, you buy another. You don't worry about doing right by them, you don't have to.

Voluntary slavery, on the other hand, makes things very sticky. If a person puts themselves up for sale, they can pick and choose--and demand a binding contract that promises that the master "Will not castrate!" In fact, there really MUST be a contract--otherwise the Master will renege and/or the slave will just leave. And the person selling themselves has to get something worthwhile for the sale--otherwise why not just get a job? For example, the master has to promise that the slave's entire family will be raised up out of poverty. Which, frankly, has been done. Many a courtesan has sold herself to a man to keep her family out of poverty.

Frankly...I don't see voluntary slavery as being very cost effective--and far to messy to impliment. How, after all, do you prove that the person signed the contract voluntarily?

Of course, if you really want people to voluntarily sell themselves into slavery...do anything you ask...just tell them you're going to put them on television. Reality shows have proven it. People will do anything to be on television.

Again, relevant points. I think that the last one might well work for some cases in my story. The girl in question, however, is not merely wanting a Dom to control her. She is wanting social security in a sense, as in not having to worry about retirement or termination. She also wants regular sex from her boss, and she figures that he will be motivated to screw a girl that he owns. She makes no pretense of being in love with him. It's not about love. It is a pragmatic deal for her.

 

[3113]

An poor kid from 'Appalachia' who enlists is going from unemployment and misery to 'three squares' and a social status--doing what "the man" says is not a price one even thinks twice about.

A very valid point, but there is a difference in the military. You *can* be promoted. Granted, as a soldier you are always *suppose* to be obeying orders from higher ups no matter what they are. But as you go up the ranks, you start to be the decision maker. You gain respect and you gain control and you're expected to think, not just obey.

So it's more than the food and social status--it's also the potential to be in power yourself.

If you get high enough up, you can even influence those above you rather than just saying "Yes sir!" and obeying.

This really does make the point, however. Voluntary slavery exists--no need for legalization or contracts. I really think that the most evident such slavery is something like cults, where people really do surrender everything and obey to extremes--and for nothing other than the privliege of obeying! You think about those in the Manson family who, at their leader's command, went off to murder innocent people. They gave up their freedom, their bodies, their will, even thinking for themselves--and they didn't do it for money, or to help out relatives, or for three squares. You can't get more voluntary than that.

Here's a quote from one of the girls: "I personally thought that I belonged to Charlie....There was no limit to what I'd do for him."

 

[Rope64]

As a matter of legal philosophy, the only important question, as Ted-E-Bare suggested, is, what kind of society do you end up with if you recognize the right to surrender your freedom permanently? We used to have debtor prisons, but now we have bankruptcy protections, and I think the reason for this change is very much that we as a society found that life was too uncertain and ultimately too unpleasant when your freedom was on the line whenever you undertook a debt. Probably allowing voluntary slavery would follow a similar path.

As a moral matter, it might be considered that your future self is not exactly the same as your present self, and perhaps it is reasonable to put limits on the degree to which one may commit his future self to a particular course of action. It might also be argued that one would have to be insane in order to agree to permanent slavery, and any contract agreed to by an insane person is not binding ...

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

More cogent points from Pure, Quiet Cool, Mack, SeaCat, and Og. It seems that everyone has an opinion on this, or just about everyone, and a valid one at that. This is part of why I don't shy from such uncomfortable ethical questions. They create too much intelligent discussion for me NOT to mention them.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

As a matter of legal philosophy, the only important question, as Ted-E-Bare suggested, is, what kind of society do you end up with if you recognize the right to surrender your freedom permanently? We used to have debtor prisons, but now we have bankruptcy protections, and I think the reason for this change is very much that we as a society found that life was too uncertain and ultimately too unpleasant when your freedom was on the line whenever you undertook a debt. Probably allowing voluntary slavery would follow a similar path.

As a moral matter, it might be considered that your future self is not exactly the same as your present self, and perhaps it is reasonable to put limits on the degree to which one may commit his future self to a particular course of action. It might also be argued that one would have to be insane in order to agree to permanent slavery, and any contract agreed to by an insane person is not binding ...

A particularly intriguing idea. I AM a very different man from who I was ten years ago. I know that I would never sign such a contract, but if my earlier self had, it might well be deemed a crime against my present self. VERY original argument, Rope.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Ultimately, leaving aside the ethics of it, Quiet Cool has the most relevant point in regard to the story. The world in question is being ruled by a psychic superman who could make people go along with his decrees rather easily. Much of his power of persuasion lies in knowing everyone's particular price, thus enabling him to bribe all of the right people at the right time to climb the political and economic ladder. Another part is simply his ability to brainwash people into thinking that they should automatically obey his wishes. A third is his power to hypnotize people into thinking that they DIDN'T do what he made them do. In their non-hypnotic state, they might oppose him, but when hypnotized, they do what he wants of them. His rise to power is understandably meteroic as a result, especially during a global economic breakdown. His mortal rivals are simply no match for him.

 

[Weird Harold]

All of you raise good concerns. MY main ethical qualm is the irrevocable nature of such an act. If you turn ownership of your body over to someone else, you no longer own it and thus have no rights. That person can then do what they wish with you, presumably. Thus, what began as a consensual act has turned into something less than consensual.

I've encountered numerous examples in fiction of slavery institutions that secure the rights of slaves -- in a couple of cases systems that protect slaves rights more than they protect the rights of freemen.

There are examples of similar systems in history to some extent -- usually framed in the context of the owner's property rights, but slaves were often untouchable except by their owners.

In a way, such slaves' rights systems are often a satire of animal rights activism but whether you call it "cruelty to animals" or "slave abuse" the principle of a government limiting what an owner can do with his (living) property is well established in both fiction and history.

In the context of a fictional benevolent dictatorship, trading freedom for security with guaranteed rights might be a very attractive proposition for a sizable section of the populace. Not necessarily a big enough segment to disrupt the balance of economic or political power, but enough to fuel a thriving service industry manned by indentured people.

 

[Rope64]

The world in question is being ruled by a psychic superman who could make people go along with his decrees rather easily. Much of his power of persuasion lies in knowing everyone's particular price, thus enabling him to bribe all of the right people at the right time to climb the political and economic ladder. Another part is simply his ability to brainwash people into thinking that they should automatically obey his wishes. A third is his power to hypnotize people into thinking that they DIDN'T do what he made them do. In their non-hypnotic state, they might oppose him, but when hypnotized, they do what he wants of them. His rise to power is understandably meteroic as a result, especially during a global economic breakdown. His mortal rivals are simply no match for him.

You should read this essay: The Use of Knowledge in Society

 

[Rope64]

I've encountered numerous examples in fiction of slavery institutions that secure the rights of slaves -- in a couple of cases systems that protect slaves rights more than they protect the rights of freemen.

Not necessarily just in fiction. In pre-Civil War America, which toward the end was also early Industrial Revolution America, the "freedom" of industrial workers in the North probably compared disfavorably in many respects with the condition of slaves in the South: you had no guarantee of work, and thus no guarantee of pay, and you generally needed pay to survive. Slaves, I believe, were still subject to some moral if not legal protections: you did not starve your slaves (indeed, this might have been just an economic consideration: if you did not have enough work for your slaves to even justify feeding them, you would reasonably sell them).

 

[Purple Sage]

.....if YOU own your body, do you have the right to surrender that ownership to another person? I'm wondering this because of a germ of a story idea I had where the world has a single government and laws that allow slavery on one condition: if people sell THEMSELVES into it. I know such laws sound strange, but if everyone has the right to do with their bodies as they please, to work or stay at home, to have kids or not, etc., then they would presumably have that right. That's my tack on it. Logically, it makes sense. You have the right to give up anything that belongs to YOU, including yourself.

Well, if it's not ethical, neither is joining the army. Of course, many people would aregue that joining the army isn't ethical, and it's the opinion of the United States government (as expressed at the Nuremburg trials) that joining the army doesn't absolve an individual from culpability in immoral acts. With that caveat, there's a rather substantial population of BDSM people who believe that consensual slavery is perfectly ethical- it's not a terribly new idea.

 

[3113]

Much of his power of persuasion lies in knowing everyone's particular price, thus enabling him to bribe all of the right people at the right time to climb the political and economic ladder. Another part is simply his ability to brainwash people into thinking that they should automatically obey his wishes. A third is his power to hypnotize people into thinking that they DIDN'T do what he made them do.

Um...I don't understand why you need this psychic superman in order to create a society where voluntary slavery is legal. Or where this superman fits into your story since you're going to make it about the guy's "right-hand man." The psychic superman seems moot--and a distraction to the story...or if not a distraction, then someone who undermines the story itself. I'll get to that in a minute.

(Side note: I also don't know why our superman even has to do bribing in order to climb the ladder. It seems to me he can brainwash people to support him, give him money, give him positions of power, elect him to congress and the presidency...and if his hypnosis works on television, then he can get everyone to vote him dictator for life.)

Kind of Professor X (X-men) gone bad.

The reason this guy undermines the story is because given the kind of power he has, everyone becomes his voluntary slave anyway. And anyone working for him--or his top people, would HAVE to be totally dedicated and servile. Like I said. A cult. This is the leader of the cult. Everyone on down "belongs" to him and is in his hypnotic power, and will do anything for him or those who serve him.

So...why does the secretary need anything legally binding? Why does she need a contract? She must have given herself, body and soul, to serving this man or anyone he wants her to serve the minute she applied for the job. If the right-hand man says, "Get under the table and give me a blow job!' She's going to get right to it because serving this top man is how she serves her great and powerful leader.

As for her wanting "pragmatic" stuff--slavery is not pragmatic unless, like those poor girls, your family is starving and there's no other way to feed them. For a secretary like this, the situation is quite the opposite. Given the hypnotic power of your superman, she might well say, as Charlie's girl did, that there are no limits. If the boss wants her to leave, she'll leave. If he wants her to die fo him, she'll die. If he wants her to kill for him, she'll kill.

THAT kind of voluntary slavery--where it involves not raw necessity, but brainwashing, is hardly pragmatic. Far from it. Those are the kind of people who will castrate themselves and then commit suicide for their leader.

Just my thoughts writing/story wise.

 

[mack_the_knife]

In Terry Pratchett's Discworld series (admittedly a comedy series) the Ephebian slaves had such extensive privileges that not only did they not want to run away. Their owners were required to keep them and provide for their various benifits, including two weeks a year of 'running away', where the owner had to pay for their fare home from wherever they wound up at the end of the two weeks.

Obviously, you're aiming for something darker than this.

 

[Boxlicker101]

In America during colonial times and even after, people signed on as "indentured servants". The bosses would pay their passage from Europe, and they would work for them for an agreed upon period of time. This was a perfectly legal contract and if the IS tried to skip out, they could be prosecuted and jailed.

 

[mack_the_knife]

In America during colonial times and even after, people signed on as "indentured servants". The bosses would pay their passage from Europe, and they would work for them for an agreed upon period of time. This was a perfectly legal contract and if the IS tried to skip out, they could be prosecuted and jailed.

That's why in my little blurb up there, I had the girl refer to herself as an 'indent', as she had signed herself away for a fixed period of indenture. Problem was with the original program that many bosses took advantage of the situation to further indebt the indentured to the company store, in effect keeping many in virtual slavery.

 

[SummerMorning]

.....if YOU own your body, do you have the right to surrender that ownership to another person? I'm wondering this because of a germ of a story idea I had where the world has a single government and laws that allow slavery on one condition: if people sell THEMSELVES into it. I know such laws sound strange, but if everyone has the right to do with their bodies as they please, to work or stay at home, to have kids or not, etc., then they would presumably have that right. That's my tack on it. Logically, it makes sense. You have the right to give up anything that belongs to YOU, including yourself.

Why not? There have historically been societies where slaves could buy slaves and so on. Like ancient Rome.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Um...I don't understand why you need this psychic superman in order to create a society where voluntary slavery is legal. Or where this superman fits into your story since you're going to make it about the guy's "right-hand man." The psychic superman seems moot--and a distraction to the story...or if not a distraction, then someone who undermines the story itself. I'll get to that in a minute.

(Side note: I also don't know why our superman even has to do bribing in order to climb the ladder. It seems to me he can brainwash people to support him, give him money, give him positions of power, elect him to congress and the presidency...and if his hypnosis works on television, then he can get everyone to vote him dictator for life.)

Kind of Professor X (X-men) gone bad.

The reason this guy undermines the story is because given the kind of power he has, everyone becomes his voluntary slave anyway. And anyone working for him--or his top people, would HAVE to be totally dedicated and servile. Like I said. A cult. This is the leader of the cult. Everyone on down "belongs" to him and is in his hypnotic power, and will do anything for him or those who serve him.

So...why does the secretary need anything legally binding? Why does she need a contract? She must have given herself, body and soul, to serving this man or anyone he wants her to serve the minute she applied for the job. If the right-hand man says, "Get under the table and give me a blow job!' She's going to get right to it because serving this top man is how she serves her great and powerful leader.

As for her wanting "pragmatic" stuff--slavery is not pragmatic unless, like those poor girls, your family is starving and there's no other way to feed them. For a secretary like this, the situation is quite the opposite. Given the hypnotic power of your superman, she might well say, as Charlie's girl did, that there are no limits. If the boss wants her to leave, she'll leave. If he wants her to die fo him, she'll die. If he wants her to kill for him, she'll kill.

THAT kind of voluntary slavery--where it involves not raw necessity, but brainwashing, is hardly pragmatic. Far from it. Those are the kind of people who will castrate themselves and then commit suicide for their leader.

Just my thoughts writing/story wise.

Actually, this psychic superman is meant to be the one who changes the laws, thus enabling not only legal slavery, but public nudity and a few other things integral to the story. Furthermore, he is the reason why the secretary initially approaches the right-hand man for a job. Knowing that she has made it clear to that man in the past that she has no romantic feelings for him, she fears (wrongly) that he might use his new power to seek retribution.

Hoping that he still has a soft spot for her, she tries to beg for her life- unnecessarily, as it turns out. The deputy has no intentions of taking revenge for her lack of emotional attachment to him. In his view, feelings are not voluntary, and thus neither right nor wrong. He offers her a job instead of threatening to kill her. This stuns her, but she accepts. The job, being government work, carries automatic benefits and possible hopes of a pension if she gets tenure.

She doesn't know at first that he is planning to use the job to take what she CAN choose to give him: sex. As the deputy, he doesn't fear sexual harassment suits, but he doesn't plan to harass her anyway. He just plans to use his connections as inducements to sexual favors (e.g. a new car, a new apartment, a better school for her son). If she wants him to pull strings, he will only do so on certain conditions. It's not about love, because his infatuation with her is fading. His lust isn't, however.

Once she gets laid a few times, enjoys it a lot, and experiments more with his wilder lifestyle, she develops a fondness for being part of his favored inner circle. She even gets to fuck the dictator himself a few times, though not regularly. Furthermore, she doesn't want to wait until retirement and tenure to get a guarantee of a comfortable future. She is fundamentally a follower. She has been exposed to his luxurious existence and wants a more frequent part in it.

Eventually, she approaches him while he is chatting with his boss, and asks if there might be some way that she can live at his nice, palatial residence and have more frequent sex with him and his other women. He suggests an indenture, which is less extreme than what the dictator proposes: slavery. She is a little jolted by that idea at first, but she soon decides that it is more palatable than a temporary indenture contract. The dictator has a few slaves already, and thinks that it is time for his deputy to follow his example by taking slaves. Despite his own initial discomfort by that kind of complete domination of his secretary, the deputy quickly agrees to take her on as a slave. If she works out for him, he resolves to take more slaves from his indentured girls.

I have thought of an alternative, however: merge the superman with his deputy into one character. Make the superman the one that she rejected at one point, and thus REALLY fears execution.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Um...I don't understand why you need this psychic superman in order to create a society where voluntary slavery is legal. Or where this superman fits into your story since you're going to make it about the guy's "right-hand man." The psychic superman seems moot--and a distraction to the story...or if not a distraction, then someone who undermines the story itself. I'll get to that in a minute.

(Side note: I also don't know why our superman even has to do bribing in order to climb the ladder. It seems to me he can brainwash people to support him, give him money, give him positions of power, elect him to congress and the presidency...and if his hypnosis works on television, then he can get everyone to vote him dictator for life.)

Kind of Professor X (X-men) gone bad.

The reason this guy undermines the story is because given the kind of power he has, everyone becomes his voluntary slave anyway. And anyone working for him--or his top people, would HAVE to be totally dedicated and servile. Like I said. A cult. This is the leader of the cult. Everyone on down "belongs" to him and is in his hypnotic power, and will do anything for him or those who serve him.

So...why does the secretary need anything legally binding? Why does she need a contract? She must have given herself, body and soul, to serving this man or anyone he wants her to serve the minute she applied for the job. If the right-hand man says, "Get under the table and give me a blow job!' She's going to get right to it because serving this top man is how she serves her great and powerful leader.

As for her wanting "pragmatic" stuff--slavery is not pragmatic unless, like those poor girls, your family is starving and there's no other way to feed them. For a secretary like this, the situation is quite the opposite. Given the hypnotic power of your superman, she might well say, as Charlie's girl did, that there are no limits. If the boss wants her to leave, she'll leave. If he wants her to die fo him, she'll die. If he wants her to kill for him, she'll kill.

THAT kind of voluntary slavery--where it involves not raw necessity, but brainwashing, is hardly pragmatic. Far from it. Those are the kind of people who will castrate themselves and then commit suicide for their leader.

Just my thoughts writing/story wise.

The TV idea IS good, and has occurred to me. I just didn't want to make things happen TOO quickly, which I feared that it would that way. I wanted this guy to have something of a past, so that he isn't becoming Supreme Leader of the world at the age of 18. A little wisdom and foresight on how to rule and build up a faction of loyal supporters BEFORE he comes to power would be useful, which is why he takes the scenic route to power.