The debate "It should be legal to consent to being legally owned" was started by
March 25, 2020, 6:48 pm.
19 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 12 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
LittlePrincess posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Allirix posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
LittlePrincess, StrykerX12, tisya_aaa and 16 visitors agree.
Allirix, akashmeka, Nemiroff, bitchimaqueen and 8 visitors disagree.
how exactly does a long or expensive legal process protect from coercion? people looking for slaves are usually people with plenty of money, time, and effort to spare.
Well coercian can but any of your arguments can be fixed through a legal process... how would you be able to do that if you need money, time, effort, and patience to go through a legal process. If going through a legal process cost 10,000 and it takes a year of investigation. Also a long process of formatting and you're required to have a decent living condition that's luxury to a person from a third world country. It would be impossible for someone who is poor, incapable, criminal, and those with bad intentions to be able to even be allowed.
the question of coersion is central.
like the many poor in 3rd world countries that are *forced to volunteer* their organs to settle debts. this is yet another idea that some may push in the name of freedom but with the goal of oppression.
oh please. more like the parents are owned by the child.
Legal ownership of a human requires legislation or common law around that ownership. I agree you should be allowed to act as though you are owned by someone, and that is intrinsically consensual, but there shouldn't be any legally binding contract or legislation that enforces that ownership.
What do you mean owned? Is a child owned by his parents?