Talk:Voluntary slavery

biased?

This article seems to focus entirely on the arguments AGAINST voluntary slavery, with no mention of any arguments in favor of it (eg, the argument that self ownership inherently must include the right to transfer that ownership to another voluntarily, and that self ownership is a fundamental right). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:441:8600:3324:8826:AE48:ACEC:83CB (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

article

i put this article into slavery and it was deemed "Not relevent to article" now another censorer has deemed his job to censor the fact that there is Voluntary slavery on the web.

• It's not censorship, and the sky isn't falling. All content on Wikipedia must be verified by reliable sources. Provide some of those and there won't be a problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

why can't it be added to exploitation article or the term redirected to exploitation? Jane Benn (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC) comment added by Jane Benn (talk • contribs) 20:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hear this on CBC

CBC[1] had a discussion on unpaid workers on the web vs old style paying journalist. i guess you people don't know there really is Voluntary slavery out there. the example that was given was thew Huntington Report where most of their journalist don't get paid. Jane Benn (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Jane Benn (talk • contribs) 20:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

merge to Slavery

Discussion is at Talk:Slavery#merge from Voluntary slavery. --Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have reverted this merger for which there was no consensus nor proper process. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not at all true. The article was tagged and discussion was open for eleven days and there was no comment from you in that time. There was only one participant other than myself, and their only objection was that it could be expanded later, which isn't really a reason not to merge. If you want to expand this article, be my guest, but don't go throwing false accusations around while your at it please. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

So, other than "process" did you have an actual specific objection to the merger proposal? The article is still a brief stub, and I honestly don't understand your opposition to the merger, in which not one word of content was actually lost. I assumed you undid the merge because you planned to expand the article, but that has not happened either, so I'm left wondering what your point is exactly. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

modern analysis section reads like low-quality political journalism

the tone exhibited in this entry (and, in particular, the second paragraph of the modern analysis section) is more appropriate for an opinion piece than an encyclopedia. "radicals and left-wing activists?" i believe that policy forbids this type of language.

oxymoron

"voluntary slavery" is oxymoron word as the term "slavery" already mean violates the one's freewill, so "voluntary slavery" is never to be any existence because "voluntary" and "slavery" contradicted each other.

Anyone can play the role of "slavery", but it never to be a slavery voluntary since the word "slavery" already states its involuntary. 2001:B011:800A:953A:847D:56EC:22F2:7993 (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)