### Argument Against Modern Debt Assignment: A Parallel to Slave Trade Agreements

#### Historical Context and Moral Perspective

1. **Slave Agreements as Debt Repayment by Labor**:

- Historically, "slave agreements" can be understood as debt repayment agreements by labor. Such agreements allowed individuals without financial means to borrow and repay through their labor. These agreements were not inherently immoral when viewed as temporary labor contracts aimed at repaying a debt.

- Even in the Old Testament, God set time limits on debt and slave agreements, reflecting an ethical framework where labor-based debt repayment was regulated to prevent perpetual servitude. This suggests that labor agreements, when limited and consensual, were seen as a legitimate form of debt repayment.

2. **Debt Assignment and Privity of Contract**:

- In English common law, privity of contract emphasized that only the parties involved in the original agreement had rights and obligations under that contract. This principle protected the personal nature of the contractual relationship, limiting debt assignment and preventing the commodification of personal obligations.

- Without Privity, a contract cannot be considered morally enforceable. Privity can only exist between real, identified people and privity is lost when a debt is "sold".

#### Modern Debt Assignment: Ethical and Moral Concerns

3. **Commodification of Personal Obligations**:

- Modern debt assignment transforms personal financial obligations into tradable commodities. This process dehumanizes the debtor, reducing individuals to mere financial assets to be traded for profit.

- Just as the commodification of human beings in the slave trade was inherently immoral, so too is the commodification of personal debt obligations that disregard the humanity of the debtor.

4. **Exploitation and Abuse**:

- The debt market is rife with exploitation and abuse. Debts are often sold to collection agencies that employ aggressive and sometimes unethical tactics to recover owed amounts, leading to significant psychological and financial distress for debtors.

- The original terms of the debt agreement are often disregarded in these transactions, leading to unfair treatment and exploitation of debtors who are already in vulnerable positions.

5. **Loss of Personal Agency**:

- Debt assignment strips individuals of their personal agency and autonomy in their financial dealings. Debtors have no control over who holds their debt or how it will be managed once it is sold.

- This loss of control can be compared to the loss of autonomy experienced by enslaved individuals, who had no say in the transactions that governed their lives and fates.

#### Call for Repudiation

6. **Revisiting Privity of Contract**:

- A return to the principle of privity of contract would restore the personal nature of debt agreements, ensuring that only the original parties are involved in the enforcement and management of these obligations.

- This would protect debtors from the dehumanizing effects of debt commodification and the abuses of the secondary debt market.

7. **Moral Imperative for Repudiation**:

- Just as society has repudiated slave trade agreements as fundamentally immoral, there is a moral imperative to repudiate modern debt assignments that exploit and dehumanize individuals.

- The pervasive injustice in the debt market, characterized by exploitation, loss of autonomy, and dehumanization, necessitates a reevaluation of the ethical foundations of debt trading.

8. **Towards a Just Financial System**:

- Repudiating modern debt assignment would pave the way for a more just and humane financial system. It would emphasize the dignity and autonomy of individuals over the profit motives of financial institutions.

- Legal reforms could ensure that debts remain personal agreements, fostering fairer treatment and respect for the rights and well-being of debtors.

### Conclusion

The practice of modern debt assignment shares troubling similarities with the historical immorality of slave trade agreements. Both involve the commodification and exploitation of individuals, stripping them of their autonomy and dignity. By drawing this parallel, it becomes evident that there is a strong moral and ethical case for repudiating modern debt assignment. Revisiting and reinforcing the principle of privity of contract would protect individuals from the injustices of the debt market and promote a more humane and just financial system. This perspective aligns with the understanding that even ancient labor-based debt repayment agreements, when regulated and consensual, were seen as legitimate and ethical forms of fulfilling debt obligations.