He obviously did not mean that he literally expects to be “conscripted” to perform medical services and thus enslaved, but rather that the notion that one has a legally-enforceable “right” to private individuals’ (not a public servant’s, as they ARE, in a sense, like slaves to the electorate for so long as they hold office) implies by logical extension (a thought experiment, if you will) that, in the event that no doctors volunteered, it would be theoretically valid to enslave them in service of patients’ legally-binding “rights.” He thus illustrates the authoritarian character of this law through logical exposition. However, as I’ve noted earlier, Dr. Paul miscalculated, for the term “slavery” is simply too racially-charged in our country to elicit thoughtful consideration rather than a cacophony of wild braying and indignance both feigned and real.