[0x3f]

Only for a very narrow definition of slavery. Arguably constructing society such that it costs so much to just exist (for example, by artificially restricting housing supply) and thus you have to work is not all that different to slavery. I would say the dollar is but company scrip with better PR.

[ceejayoz]

> Only for a very narrow definition of slavery.

Good. We have "enumerate[d] [at least one] inaliable basic [freedom] that I should not be able to deal in".

[0x3f]

Well now you're equivocating. We've established one that you can't deal in in a specific country. _Should_ is quite a different question. You can't establish should by establishing is.

[ceejayoz]

Don't hurt your back moving those goalposts. Lift with hips.

[0x3f]

America = literally the whole world and everyone in it so QED inalienable rights exist

Well I wouldn't call it a strong argument...

Nonetheless the goalposts were never shifted. The question was always 'should'. So I'm very confused by your confusion.

[ceejayoz]

What proof, exactly, would you accept for "should"?

Should is an opinion. You're welcome to feel "slavery should be legal". I'm welcome to (and should) think you're insane for holding that opinion.

[0x3f]

> Should is an opinion.

Well that would seem to make the rights in question not particularly inalienable. In fact if we're talking about the US slavery _is_ legal in certain contexts. So it's definitely not inalienable. Only in the context of voluntary agreements between private citizens.