You didn’t read the article you linked. In it Walter Block states that slavery violates the non-aggression-principle and is not permissible under libertarianism.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Let us now double down. Previously (Block 2005; 2013) wrote that slavery, in the absence of violence, compulsion, NAP violation was ―not so bad.‖ That was a poor choice of words. It was an inaccurate understatement. The truth of the matter is that under these conditions ―slavery‖ would be a positive good. There, I said it. I will say it again: ―Slavery‖ would be a positive good, under these conditions. Make of that what you will, New York Times and other enemies of freedom and logic. But note that when I assert that ―slavery‖ would be a benefit, two things occurred. First, I placed quote marks (―‖) around the word ―slavery‖ and second I mentioned that under these conditions it would be beneficial. I did not say, and I entirely reject the notion that slavery as actually practiced was anything other than a disgrace, a stark horrid evil. It is my view that the movies ―Django Unchained,‖ ―Twelve Years a Slave,‖ and the television series ―Roots‖ are roughly accurate depictions of this monstrous practice

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

The only slavery I can think of without compulsion would be some kind of BDSM relationship, so he’s technically correct it’s no problem in that scenario.

Aside from any kind of roleplay, slavery involves compulsion. Slavery without compulsion is like an apple without fruit.

[–] huge_clock@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

What do you think he’s saying here?