Slave contracts would be enforceable. Since slaves would be property they would be just as fully under the de jure control of their owners as, say, a working animal on a farm currently is. This is the crucial consideration that has swayed most of those who have actually thought about the possibility of voluntary slavery to rule it out of contention. How can a choice of total future unfreedom possibly be a legitimate freedom? How could it be justifiable for a society committed to the value of individual liberty to condone, enable and enforce such contracts?That champion of individual liberty, John Stuart Mill, was certainly persuaded that voluntary slavery agreements shouldn’t be allowed because the slaves would be abdicating their future freedom completely. In Mill’s own words:The reason for not interfering, unless for the sake of others, with a person’s voluntary acts is consideration for his liberty. … But by selling himself for a slave he abdicates his liberty; he forgoes any future use of it beyond that single act. … The principle of freedom cannot require that he should be free not to be freeThis argument runs counter to Mill’s own insistence that, over matters that directly affect only his or her own self, an individual’s sovereignty is absolute. The burden of his anti-slavery argument is that people shouldn’t be allowed to do anything counterproductive to a maximisation of their future freedom. Following this principle, however, leads straight to conclusions that Mill himself would never have endorsed. For one thing, since death precludes any future exercise of freedom, voluntary euthanasia and suicide would have to be regarded as impermissible. Smoking, drinking, eating junk foods and indulging in risky sports all threaten to undercut future freedom, so that under a regime of freedom maximisation all these choices would have to be disallowed. The impetus of Mill’s argument do...
