Posted on 03/26/2002 7:30:11 AM PST by The Old Hoosier
Yesterday, I got into an argument with some libertarians. I promised to humiliate myself if they could answer the following question:
If I want to sell myself into slavery in order to pay off debts, why should the government be able to prevent me? Why should I not have every right to enter into an indissoluble contract surrendering my freedom--temporarily or permanently--to someone else in exchange for some consideration?
I hereby admit that I was wrong, because ThomasJefferson agreed that the government should have no power to prohibit voluntary slavery--a step that I did not think any of them would want to take. I hereby eat crow. (Tpaine and Eagle Eye still haven't given direct answers, but I'll mention it here when they do, and eat more crow.)
The relevant part of the long argument we had is here. TJ agrees to voluntary slavery at 374.
You mean the God of Abraham?
Defined where?
Main Entry: slav·ery
Pronunciation: 'slA-v(&-)rE
Function: noun
Date: 1551
1 : DRUDGERY, TOIL 2 : submission to a domina
ting influence
3 a : the state of a person who is a chattel of another b : the practice of slaveholding
www.m-w.com
Involuntary servitude should remain illegal, even if it conflicts with Libertarianism's primitive ideas about the nature of contract.
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)
Strange notion of contracts you have there Roscoe.
That is strange, considering that's precisely what I and hundreds of thousands of others did back when we joined the military. And trust me on this, if you don't abide by your contract with them they will drag you back in chains. Of course I realize that military law is a bit different than civil and tort law. But in any case it is one place where someone can legally voluntarily enter into a binding contract that will ultimately make them an involuntary servant for a pre-specified period.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of military conscription.
It is otherwise known by the rather begnin monicker of "selective service", or "the draft".
The facts in my previous post were:
1. People voluntarily enter into military service. (although under conscription and drafts even this step isn't voluntary)
2. Once having entered into military service, contracted individuals no longer serve on a voluntary basis being bound for whatever length of time until their contract expires.
3. If a soldier or sailor breaks the contract, they can and will be "dragged back in chains."
In my first post I didn't offer an opinion as to whether this is right or wrong. For the record, I believe that it is right and that those soldiers and sailors should be bound by their contract provided they entered into it voluntarily--I am opposed to conscription.
Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918). The Court's analysis, in full, of the Thirteenth Amendment issue raised by a compulsory military draft was the following: ''As we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.''
Nobody is forcing you to remain in America, OWK. Perhaps you could own some indentured servants in Somalia.
No... I remain here voluntarily.
And I served in the United States Army voluntarily.
Did you?
Comparing America to a slaveowner is tired Randite rhetoric.
Then you have voluntarily subjected yourself to our nation's Constitution and laws, so you may not hold an indentured servant in bondage.
Just as an employee may quit, you are free to leave.
What court has ever held differently?
Ohhh... I see.
So my choice to remain here, is tantamount to tacit approval of any politico's interpretation of the constitution...?
Otherwise I'd have to leave?
Is that your position?
Seems utterly silly to me (as do most of your positions)
Or we are free to be disobedient and face the possible consequences, or free to attempt to change laws that are wrong by using either non-violent or violent (as was suggested and done by the founders) methods.
The United States Supreme Court made clear that you can't hold slaves under the guise of contract or debt.
The 13th Amendment stands, Libertarian doctrine once again fails.
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.