Martin Page

Most of the arguments here seem to say that a slave contract would be invalid on logical grounds. However, a master/slave relationship could still exist as a social fact as long as the slave refuses to retaliate or abscond (or is unable to, due to physical circumstances, e.g. a labour camp) Does this mean that an objectivist society would 'rescue' voluntary slaves, or simply refuse to enforce such contracts? M

I agree about the implicit contract, but who would enforce it and why?

I've just discovered Objectivism, and this whole guardianship issue troubles me. As I understand it, an Objectivist government is rather like a mutual protection association: it exists purely in order to further the rational self-interest of the consenting governed, and this extends no further than the prevention of physical aggression and fraud. What's the self interest argument for intervening to protect a child or animal? Martin (Puzzled newbie)