But who makes these objective standards?
I thought I stated my position pretty clearly. The principle of self-ownership seems to be a God designed feature of humanity.
Who would you be ok with matter universal standards for you?
Aren't you assuming a principle of self-ownership in this very question?
If you are for self ownership.....wouldnt that mean that you should allow the OPer to sell himself if he likes?
I don't think the principle of self ownership is alienable from oneself (I stated this clearly in the last post too). I'm saying you're unable to separate yourself from owning yourself. Because this is an inalienable property, attempts to alienate it require force and violence. Selling oneself into slavery, in the sense that you become the property of another person, requires violence on the part of the slave owner and the person selling themselves. It requires some form of violence since the new "owner" can never really alienate the slave's self-ownership. People are born with the inalienable property of self-ownership as designed by God. Because it's inalienable, attempts to alienate it require continuous force and violence.
In a real sense, it's an illegitimate contract. It violates essential features of a contract for the simple reason that it violates self-ownership. Once owned, a slave has no recourse for contract enforcement, no contractual rights, and no method of termination (otherwise, the person has retained self-ownership and isn't in fact a slave).
One additional note is the self-defeating nature of the act itself as it assumes a general principle of self-ownership in order to deny self-ownership. It requires a continuous voluntary act of wills, which presumes self-ownership throughout the enslavement.
Wouldnt you prohibiting this be taking some of his ownership away and giving it to yourself?
No, I would simply be acknowledging his inalienable property of self-ownership.
Yes I was only referring to actions that does no harm to anyone else. I did not see the OPers selling himself into slavery as harming anyone else.
Well, it requires the owner to try to violate the principle of self-ownership. Harm to another person is baked into the cake and is a feature of the arrangement. It requires the owner to do some form of harm on the slave; at a minimum, a violation of their self-ownership.
However, trying to make slavery universal, to affect those who do not want it, could be harmful.......similar to your preventing the OPer from doing so, if he so desires it.
I think disavowing self-ownership as you do is harmful to everyone, including the person that tries selling themselves into slavery