I'm saying your entire original premise was faulty, so no follow-up changed that.

No you weren't. You were asserting that certain things must be the case, when they clerely weren't. I merely pointed this out.

You're aware that it used to be legal, and was banned, correct? Precisely because the abuses of that service were so horrendous and unconscionable that people collectively couldn't allow it to continue; at the time they were willing to be racist and replace it with african slavery, but that also caused the US to literally rip itself apart.

Are we talking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery ?

More ignorant false dichotomies

You're the only one who provided a dichotomy. My point was literally to show that you provided a false dichotomy by showing another option.

banning slavery and assisting the poor would go together.

Why would you need to ban slavery if you could provide people with better options instead?

Not to mention you naively assume slaves would be well-treated,

Quote where I've stated this.

So, you're a person who thinks that all morality is pure personal taste, and that there's nothing "actually" wrong with any action? In that case you literally can't complain about any treatment you receive from anyone

That doesn't logically follow. Nor did you tell me the magical place in the universe where I can find these rights you speak of.

The whole point of slavery is that it removes your right to voluntarily make decisions; irrevocable contracts are in general a problem, especially all-encompassing ones. By definition, if you are a slave, you no longer have any rights at all. You are property - it is not remotely comparable to selling labour.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The idea is that you voluntarily sell yourself into slavery, not that you voluntarily do something once in slavery.