KOL442 | Together Strong Debate vs. Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery (Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 442. Related: “The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract,” "A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability" and "Inalienability and Punishment: A Reply to George Smith," in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023) This is a debate between me and Walter Block about voluntary slavery contracts, hosted by Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project as part of his "Together Strong" debate series. (See previous episode KOL426) Grok shownotes: [0:00–30:00] In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty podcast (KOL442), Stephan Kinsella debates Walter Block in the “Together Strong” series, hosted by Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity, focusing on the contentious issue of voluntary slavery contracts. Kinsella argues against their enforceability, asserting that self-ownership is inalienable due to the direct connection between an individual and their body, making such contracts invalid as they cannot transfer control over one’s will. He emphasizes that contracts transfer titles to external property, not obligations over one’s body, and that consent can be revoked, rendering slavery agreements unenforceable. Block defends voluntary slavery, arguing that if individuals can sell their labor or body parts, they should be able to contractually commit to servitude, viewing such agreements as extensions of libertarian freedom to contract. [30:01–1:12:22] The debate intensifies as Block posits that refusing to enforce voluntary slavery contracts undermines libertarian consistency, equating it to denying other contractual obligations. Kinsella counters that Block’s view conflates economic and legal exchanges, ignoring the unique nature of body ownership, which cannot be alienated like external goods due to its non-acquired status. Sands probes both sides, exploring practical implications and edge cases, such as debt repayment or organ sales. Kinsella clarifies that responsive force against aggressors (e.g., imprisoning criminals) is justified, but voluntary slavery lacks such justification, as mere promises do not bind the will. The episode concludes with Sands summarizing the philosophical divide, with Kinsella reinforcing inalienability and Block advocating contractual liberty, leaving listeners to ponder the limits of consent in a free society. Unedited transcript (from Youtube) below. https://youtu.be/x6ecMmBpGs8?si=veUW9EnXhwujEAo1 Grok detailed shownotes: Detailed Summary for Show Notes with Time Segments Segment 1: Introduction and Opening Arguments (0:00–15:00) Description: Matthew Sands introduces the “Together Strong” debate, pitting Stephan Kinsella against Walter Block on the enforceability of voluntary slavery contracts. Kinsella opens by arguing that self-ownership is inalienable, rooted in the direct, non-acquired connection to one’s body, making slavery contracts invalid as they cannot transfer control over one’s will. He draws on his title-transfer theory of contract, asserting that contracts only transfer titles to external property, not obligations over one’s body. Block counters that individuals should be free to contract into servitude, likening it to selling labor or body parts, and argues that denying this undermines libertarian freedom. Summary: Sands sets up the debate, outlining the voluntary slavery controversy (0:00–2:45). Kinsella argues self-ownership is inalienable, as body control cannot be contractually transferred (2:46–6:30). Introduces title-transfer theory, stating contracts shift property titles, not body obligations (6:31–9:15). Block defends voluntary slavery, comparing it to labor contracts and asserting contractual liberty (9:16–12:00). Sands asks about consent’s limits, prompting initial clarifications from both (12:01–15:00). Segment 2: Philosophical Foundations and Contract Theory (15:01–30:00) Description: Kinsella elaborates that body ownership differs from external property, as the latter is acquired through homesteading or contract, while the body is inherently owned. He argues that consent can be revoked, invalidating slavery contracts, as promises do not bind the will. Block contends that enforcing such contracts is consistent with libertarianism, as individuals can commit to future obligations, like debt repayment, and denying this limits freedom. Sands explores the distinction between economic exchanges (mutual benefit) and legal exchanges (title transfers), with Kinsella emphasizing that only the latter is normative. Summary: Kinsella distinguishes body ownership (inherent) from external property (acquired), arguing consent is revocable (15:01–18:20). Block equates voluntary slavery to other contracts, asserting that commitments should be enforceable (18:21–21:45). Kinsella clarifies economic vs. legal exchanges, noting only legal transfers involve ownership (21:46–25:00). Sands questions the binding nature of promises, leading to deeper contract theory discussion (25:01–27:30). Block argues denying slavery contracts undermines libertarian consistency (27:31–30:00). Segment 3: Inalienability and Aggression (30:01–45:00) Description: Kinsella argues that voluntary slavery contracts are unenforceable because the will cannot be alienated, using the analogy of retractable consent in personal interactions to illustrate that current consent overrides past promises. Block challenges this, suggesting that retracting consent undermines all contracts, like loans, and proposes that slavery contracts could be enforced via debtor’s prison-like mechanisms. Kinsella counters that Block’s view misapplies property concepts to the body, and that responsive force (e.g., imprisoning aggressors) is justified, unlike slavery based on mere promises. Sands probes practical scenarios, such as organ sales or debt. Summary: Kinsella uses consent retraction to argue slavery contracts are invalid, as will is inalienable (30:01–33:15). Block likens slavery contracts to loans, suggesting enforcement via penalties (33:16–36:30). Kinsella argues Block conflates body and property, justifying responsive force but not slavery (36:31–40:00). Sands explores organ sales and debt, questioning enforceability limits (40:01–43:00). Kinsella reiterates that only aggression justifies force, not contractual promises (43:01–45:00). Segment 4: Critiques and Edge Cases (45:01–1:00:00) Description: Block argues that Kinsella’s rejection of voluntary slavery creates a slippery slope, weakening other contracts, and cites historical libertarian support (e.g., Robert Nozick). Kinsella refutes this, noting Nozick’s simplistic contract view and arguing that inalienability is consistent with libertarian property rights, as bodies are not acquired like goods. Sands raises edge cases, such as indentured servitude or extreme debt, with Kinsella asserting that such arrangements are valid only if they respect revocable consent. Block defends enforceability, arguing that individuals should bear the consequences of their commitments. Summary: Block claims Kinsella’s stance undermines contracts, citing Nozick’s support for slavery contracts (45:01–48:20). Kinsella refutes Nozick, arguing body ownership is unique and inalienable (48:21–51:45). Sands raises indentured servitude, with Kinsella emphasizing revocable consent (51:46–55:00). Block insists on enforcing commitments, viewing non-enforcement as anti-libertarian (55:01–57:30). Kinsella clarifies that inalienability protects freedom, not restricts it (57:31–1:00:00). Segment 5: Conclusion and Reflections (1:00:01–1:12:22) Description: Sands summarizes the debate, highlighting Kinsella’s inalienability argument and Block’s contractual freedom stance, noting their shared libertarian roots but divergent conclusions. Kinsella reinforces that voluntary slavery contradicts self-ownership, as the will cannot be bound, while Block maintains that denying such contracts limits individual choice. Sands reflects on the philosophical implications for libertarianism, encouraging listeners to explore Nations of Sanity’s resources. Kinsella directs listeners to his website (stephankinsella.com) for further reading, emphasizing his title-transfer theory and inalienability principles. Summary: Sands recaps Kinsella’s inalienability vs. Block’s contractual freedom arguments (1:00:01–1:03:00). Kinsella reiterates that slavery contracts violate self-ownership’s inalienable nature (1:03:01–1:06:15). Block defends choice, arguing non-enforcement restricts liberty (1:06:16–1:08:30). Sands reflects on libertarian divides, promoting Nations of Sanity (1:08:31–1:10:00). Kinsella plugs stephankinsella.com for his contract theory and inalienability works (1:10:01–1:12:22). References: Stephan Kinsella’s Legal Foundations of a Free Society (2023), Chapter 9. Kinsella’s The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract (Papinian Press, 2024). Walter Block’s works on voluntary slavery, e.g., A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration (1998). Nations of Sanity (nationsofsanity.com) and “Together Strong” debate series. Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) for historical context. Notes: For further discussion of this topic, see: chapters 9–11, from Legal Foundations of a Free Society (2024; LFFS), namely "A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability," "Inalienability and Punishment: A Reply to George Smith," and "Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection" Re the "Zombicide" and psychosurgery comments, see ch. 10, text at n.37, citing Randy E. Barnett The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law,