Posted on 01/15/2002 6:27:04 AM PST by tberry
We oppose any government attempt to dictate, prohibit, control, or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship.
For any contract to be valid and binding both parties must be at liberty to sign on or refuse to sign on. Pointing a gun at person's head and telling them to sign the contract does not make for a valid and binding contract. In the case of a contract signed under coercion the matter would be settled before the court and justice demands ruling in favor of the person that was coerced.
And under the 13th Amendment prohibition on slavery, contracts for indentured servitude, peonage, and slavery are illegal and unenforceable. But under Libertarianism, once an individual was under such a contract, they could be held captive for life and sold on the auction block like livestock.
Slavery in the name of "freedom" of contract.
There's at least 150 million Americans that sell part of their labor every day. [1189 Zon; quoted by Roscoe in 1195]
Someone who sells themselves into perpetual servitude is a slave. Such slavery is forbidden by the 13th Amendment, but is consistent with Libertarianism and its mutations. [1195 Roscoe]
provide the quote and URL from the Libertarian platform that supports your argument that perpetual servitude is consistent with the Libertarian platform. [1197, 1199 Zon]
We oppose any government attempt to dictate, prohibit, control, or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship. [1200 Roscoe]
From the URL you supplied http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_print.html:
I. Individual Rights and Civil Order
22. Sexual Rights
We oppose any government attempt to dictate, prohibit, control, or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship.
* * *
The section you quoted was from Sexual Rights. You intentionally and dishonestly applied that to labor which is out of context.
* * *
13. Protection of Privacy
Private contractual arrangements, including labor contracts, must be founded on mutual consent and agreement in a society that upholds freedom of association.
* * *
For any contract to be valid and binding both parties must be at liberty to sign on or refuse to sign on. Pointing a gun at person's head and telling them to sign the contract does not make for a valid and binding contract. In the case of a contract signed under coercion the matter would be settled before the court and justice demands ruling in favor of the person that was coerced.
Roscoe, your dishonesty failed you, again.
And under the 13th Amendment prohibition on slavery, contracts for indentured servitude, peonage, and slavery are illegal and unenforceable. But under Libertarianism, once an individual was under such a contract, they could be held captive for life and sold on the auction block like livestock.
The XIII Amendment prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. It states nothing about indentured servitude and it says nothing about peonage. At least you got it right that slavery is prohibited by the XIII Amendment. It doesn't surprise me in the least that you continue to be dishonest.
AMENDMENT XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
If a desperate crack addict sold himself or herself into slavery for another fix, no American court would enforce the contract or allow its enforcement. Under Libertarianism, no 13th Amendment limitations on contractual agreements would be permissible.
Such slaves could be sold at auction like livestock and whipped into bloody pulps for attempting to escape, all in the name of contract.
What a loathsome philosophy.
Libertarianism is a bottomless well of willful ignorance.
Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the majority of the court, after observing that the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth articles of amendment of the constitution were all addressed to the grievances of the negro race, and were designed to remedy them, continued as follows: "We do not say that no one else but the negro can share in this protection. Both the language and spirit of these articles are to have their fair and just weight in any question of construction. Undoubtedly, while negro slavery alone was in the mind of the congress which proposed the thirteenth article, it forbids any other kind of slavery, now or hereafter. If Mexican peonage or the Chinese coolie labor, system shall develop slavery of the Mexican or Chinese race within our territory, this amendment may safely be trusted to make it void.(169 U.S. 649) UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK. (March 25, 1898)
Slavery is the initiation of force. The Libertarian platform prohibits the initiation of force, fraud and coercion. Thus you're argument has been refuted right from the get go.
And under the 13th Amendment prohibition on slavery, contracts for indentured servitude, peonage, and slavery are illegal and unenforceable. But under Libertarianism, once an individual was under such a contract, they could be held captive for life and sold on the auction block like livestock. [1204 Roscoe]
The XIII Amendment prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. It states nothing about indentured servitude and it says nothing about peonage. At least you got it right that slavery is prohibited by the XIII Amendment. It doesn't surprise me in the least that you continue to be dishonest.
AMENDMENT XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
But, on the other hand, each tangent is rich with statist irony and its hard to resist laughing and pointing it out to passers by.
For example, take this latest nonsense mcnugget--apparantly something like: "libertarians will enforce perpetual slavery contracts between adults who consent on day 1 but change their minds on day 2." The irony here is that this immediately brings to mind one of Lysander Spooner's humorous descriptions of the statist theory of the "social contract."
I think it was somewhere in Spooner's classic Letter to Grover Cleveland where he describes "the contract" to which statists theorize we all agreed as a "contract" in which each individual says to the government something like, "OK, now in exchange for your perpetual protection I give you all of my rights and property and I want you to bind and gag me and keep me tied up forever--should I ever decide to forego your protection and re-cover my rights and property and protect myself on my own.
Nearly every nutty mcnugget of Roscoe's is like this--whether it be his using the sodomy laws to justify his program of throwing harmless opiate users into prisons where they have a 22% chance of being sodomized by force, or whether he's saying that conservative "morality" rests on the principle that allows the majority (even if they are liberal) to tax the minority (even if they are conservative) to pay for condom and homo-sexuality education.
Not is if it's "initially" entered into voluntarily.
If a desperate crack addict sold himself or herself into slavery for another fix, no American court would enforce the contract or allow its enforcement. Under Libertarianism, no 13th Amendment limitations on contractual agreements would be permissible.
Such slaves could be sold at auction like livestock and whipped into bloody pulps for attempting to escape, all in the name of contract.
What a loathsome philosophy.
Libertarianism is a bottomless well of willful ignorance.
Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the majority of the court, after observing that the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth articles of amendment of the constitution were all addressed to the grievances of the negro race, and were designed to remedy them, continued as follows: "We do not say that no one else but the negro can share in this protection. Both the language and spirit of these articles are to have their fair and just weight in any question of construction. Undoubtedly, while negro slavery alone was in the mind of the congress which proposed the thirteenth article, it forbids any other kind of slavery, now or hereafter. If Mexican peonage or the Chinese coolie labor, system shall develop slavery of the Mexican or Chinese race within our territory, this amendment may safely be trusted to make it void.(169 U.S. 649) UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK. (March 25, 1898)
Loudly contending they are slaves, Libertarians voluntarily remain on the plantation. Wouldn't want to miss dinner.
That's funny! No southern slave owner ever deluded himself into thinking that he was the one producing dinner and that he was not the parasite. But not modern day state socialist parasites like yourself. You're a riot!
Exactly. Even if intially entered into voluntarily, slavery would be deemed involuntary servitude under our Constitution.
If a desperate crack addict sold himself or herself into slavery for another fix, no American court would enforce the contract or allow its enforcement. Under Libertarianism, no 13th Amendment limitations on contractual agreements would be permissible.
Such slaves could be sold at auction like livestock and whipped into bloody pulps for attempting to escape, all in the name of contract.
What a loathsome philosophy.
"I'm a slave, even though I'm free to leave."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.