Originally Posted by
kamuimac
Mostly talking about debt slavery. You were talking about people selling themselves so they could be lazy and taken care of by an owner, not out of desperation or need to pay off a debt.
That is what's hogwash.
Hilariously, from your own chosen source;
Jean-Jacques Rousseau contends that in a contract of self-enslavement, there is no mutuality. The slave loses all. The contract negates his interests and his rights. It is entirely to his disadvantage. Since the slave loses his status as a moral agent once the slave contract is enforced, the slave cannot act to enforce anything owed to him by his master.
Your second links to a situation in a brief 60-year period in Ancient Egypt where slaves of one sort (forced labour) were able to escape that into a different from of slavery (temple slavery) by paying a fee. Which, again, not what you were talking about.
Kudos on quoting two sources, neither of which back you up.