Hacker News Reader

Comment by lovich | Hacker News Reader

We don't let people sell themselves into slavery even though that would "take away the bodily autonomy of the employee to enter mutually consensual arrangement and instead smash them with third party imposition...", no "union baron" needed.

Your race to the bottom can affect others, regardless of wether or not you recognize negative externalities exist.

View on HN

I don't see a compelling reason why I shouldn't be able to act as a slave for as long as both parties consent to it. If you want to create lovich 1840s era cotton picking slave service with the full historical recreation it's not clear why that's anyone else's business but you and the masta'.

Man you literally just had the whole but about race to the bottom and negative externalities woosh right over your head.

There are some behaviors that are banned because paradoxically by allowing you the liberty to do that, everyone’s liberty is negatively affected.

Whos liberty is effected if you and I play slave farm until one of us screams uncle?

Everyone who now has to deal with that being an option on the negotiating table. It being banned removes it from the discussion.

I am having a hard believing you’re acting in good faith if you’re arguing it’s immoral that you can’t sell yourself into slavery

That some may agree to slavery-until-i-say-uncle is far less threat to liberty than some democratic oppressor that picks and chooses what consenting adults may agree to based on what hypothetical options might end up on the negotiating table of other consenting adults.

Respectfully, no it’s not. Go read up on game theory

Reply on news.ycombinator.com