Hey, Indy

[ER]

It's often said people in the Roman Empire would sell themselves into slavery, yet if slaves had no rights and their masters owned them utterly, wouldn't the sale price of the slave become the owner's possession the second the deal was made? What kept the slave owner from taking his or her money straight back? 

[indianasmith]

Slaves did have some rights in ancient Rome; at least, household slaves did, and one of them was the right to keep whatever little bits of money they could earn on the side.  Also, unlike American chattel slavery, slaves were rarely held as bondsmen for their entire lives.  Loyal household slaves would often be manumitted and become their former master's clients.  Slavery in ancient Rome was a complex institution.

[ER]

So they were legally allowed to crucify a slave or tie him up and starve him to death on a whim but not take his money? What a strange place.

[Allhallowsday]

So they were legally allowed to crucify a slave or tie him up and starve him to death on a whim but not take his money? What a strange place.

I think the Romans may have had laws that discouraged cruelty to slaves...