If slavery contracts are banned, work-for-money contracts will be offered instead. People who prefer slavery to starvation will prefer that to slavery, and so are better off despite the removal of an option they previously took.
For further detail of how this sort of thing works, see here
But not everyone who would have gotten a slavery contract would get a work-for-money contract. Also, while one side (the slaves/employees) are being made better off, the other side is being made worse off.
People want to defect in a one-shot prisoner’s dilemma, but would be better off if there was a law against it.
I don’t see how this is relevant. People would prefer not to be able to defect in a prisoner’s dilemma—that’s their own preference.
If slavery contracts are banned, work-for-money contracts will be offered instead. People who prefer slavery to starvation will prefer that to slavery, and so are better off despite the removal of an option they previously took.
For further detail of how this sort of thing works, see here
But not everyone who would have gotten a slavery contract would get a work-for-money contract. Also, while one side (the slaves/employees) are being made better off, the other side is being made worse off.
At the cost of all of the people who prefer slavery>starvation>work. What makes people with that preference order inherently irrelevant?
Their rarity.
How large of a minority is irrelevant to oppress? If someone develops a nonsensical (to you) value function, does that make them irrelevant?