I do see the point that you are trying to make here. If a debt is incurred, it must be paid, but the lender may not compel the borrower to discharge the debt
specifically by working for the lender. I have no argument with that. But surely, if we are speaking of a contract for a particular service of some sort for which payment has been made, the payor is entitled to performance of that service. If the payee defaults, what remedy do you suggest for the payor?
That aside, can you not see your persistent use of terms like "villainous" as a clear indication of hostility?
"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."
But surely, if we are speaking of a contract for a particular service of some sort for which payment has been made, the payor is entitled to performance of that service.
A swing and a miss.
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/219/219.html