Signing Over Assets To A Man

DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES "sign over" your assets to someone who has not earned your trust.

I'm not talking days, weeks, or even months here, but a minimum of two years of having a solid, trusting relationship.    If you have many assets I would also consult a lawyer who specializes in personal trusts.  The man should also consult a lawyer in order to draw up needed legal instruments to assure that his property is maintained in the event of his death or other incapacitating event.


Let's all get back to basics here.  Why would a slave wish to "sign over" his worldly assets?  There is one reason, and one reason alone.  The slave wants to feel that all aspects of its life are controlled by a superior man.  The slave wants to make real its commitment to giving such a man complete "power of ownership".

Any action that facilitates the slave's consciousness that it is an owned piece of property existing purely for the enjoyment and pleasure of its owner is good.  Any decision that opposes that end will frustrate the slave, since the slave will find itself needing to make important decisions about its life, which it does not welcome.  To take responsibility for any decision is to own that decision, to take responsibility for making it, precisely what the slave wishes to avoid doing.

So slaves sometimes lose control of themselves much too early in what should be considered a process of divestiture.

There are other issues complicating this picture.  The way to maximize control is not necessarily to own something.  For example, suppose the slave owns a car that it now "signs over" to the man.  If the slave uses the car on a man's business, and the car is owned by the man, then the man is legally responsible and legally liable for any action of the slave in driving the car.

A better approach is for the slave to assign, with the help of a lawyer, power of attorney to the man who owns it.  That way criminal or other illegal actions of the slave do not jeopardize the owner.  This is a compromise, I admit, but the fact remains that the United States does not recognize as legal the institution of chattel slavery.  Since that's the case, men and their human property can only approximate the state of desired slavery and keeping the slave responsible for any illegality, any violation of law, must be acknowledged as a means to protect the man.

The reason why a slave ought not to "sign over" its assets to a man who has not earned its complete trust, is that the man may be untrustworthy.

After all, we don't normally permit contractors to work on our real property, to down trees or make significant repairs to the roof, without first requiring that the contractor have a bond in case something bad happens.  We want to be protected against any astronomical medical bills or rehabilitation expenses needed if the contractor hurts himself or if one of his employees hurts himself.  The owner of the property can be held financially liable without insurance and without a surety bond.

So while our heads may be filled with the music of romance, the fact remains that the bond of which we speak--consensual slavery--involves something like marriage in its legal implications.  For example, many states operate on the legal principle of "joint and several liability" in which either partner in a legal marriage becomes financially responsible for the actions of the other partner.

People with assets frequently consult lawyers to draw up "prenuptial" agreements to protect assets earned before the marriage takes place.

Law exists for a reason, and the main reason in the United States is to protect the rights of individuals.  Consequently a slave has rights that a man cannot violate even though he "owns" the slave.  In fact, as a legal matter, no one can actually "own" slaves, so the bond of consensual slavery cannot be legally enforced.

Leathermen can make voluntary agreements among themselves, however, and they can take certain legal steps to facilitate the condition they seek, but ultimately consensual slavery rests on complete trust between the man and his slave, and trust can be violated.  That is a risk leathermen are willing to risk because the felt benefits are so great, but leathermen must also take what legal steps they can take to reinforce their bond, and these steps consist primarily of protecting the man against illegal actions of the slave, and to protect the slave against unkind, unscrupulous, immoral, or even illegal actions from the men who would use them.

Psychmstr