Why is it, no offense intended, that you repeatedly ignore the substance of my comments and resort to insult or dismissal?
It is not sophistry to use clear language to explain a real distinction. My previously suggested example of military service (perfectly honorable) involves a person voluntarily making himself subject to the often arbitrary commands of his superiors. Once he has entered the contract, he must serve and obey for a specified term, subject to severe punishment for disobedience. This is clearly an indenture, but I doubt that either of us would regard it as slavery or involuntary servitude, because it is not involuntary, and the soldier may not, for example, be compelled to provide sexual services or to remain in service beyond the specified term. Furthermore, one possible punishment for failure to perform is dismissal from service, hardly the likely outcome for a slave.
This is not even a difficult point, except to the extent that your (apparently) visceral dislike of "Libertarian doctrine" (which you clearly misunderstand) predisposes you to disagree, as near as I can tell. Personally, I would prefer a more intelligent exchange, which I am fairly sure that you are capable of delivering.
I would also be interested to have you explain how I was previously "begging the question", as I still don't get it.
What substance is that?
Slavery is slavery, regardless of whether fraud was involved in initiating it.
"The meaning of this is as clear as language can make it. The things denounced are slavery and involuntary servitude, and Congress is given power to enforce that denunciation. All understand by these terms a condition of enforced compulsory service of one to another."
Libertarian doctrine runs counter to the protections of our Constitution's 13th Amendment, and would permit slavery to be re-established under the guise of contract.
I would also be interested to have you explain how I was previously "begging the question", as I still don't get it.
Your "overwhelming" sources remain well hidden.
"Peonage is a term descriptive of a condition which has existed in Spanish America, and especially in Mexico. The essence of the thing is compulsory service in payment of a debt. A peon is one who is compelled to work for his creditor until his debt is paid. And in this explicit and comprehensive enactment, Congress was not concerned with mere names or manner of description, or with a particular place or section of the country. It was concerned with a fact, wherever it might exist; with a condition, however named and wherever it might be established, maintained, or enforced.""The fact that the debtor contracted to perform the labor which is sought to be compelled does not withdraw the attempted enforcement from the condemnation of the statute. The full intent of the constitutional provision could be defeated with obvious facility if, through the guise of contracts under which advances had been made, debtors could be held to compulsory service. It is the compulsion of the service that the statute inhibits, for when that occurs, the condition of servitude is created, which would be not less involuntary because of the original agreement to work out the indebtedness. The contract exposes the debtor to liability for the loss due to the breach, but not to enforced labor."
U.S. Supreme Court, BAILEY v. STATE OF ALABAMA, 219 U.S. 219 (1911)