Skip to comments.
Old Hoosier Apologizes to Libertarians
Thread from yesterday ^
| 3-26
| TOH
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.
TOPICS: Free Republic; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: indenturedservitude; libertarian; sasu
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 261-267 next last
To: Roscoe
The United States Supreme Court made clear that you can't hold slaves under the guise of contract or debt. You mean the same United States Supreme Court that "made it clear" that the surgical destruction of unborn human beings was a "right"?
You mean that Supreme Court?
121
posted on
03/27/2002 10:35:17 AM PST
by
OWK
To: A CA Guy
The God of Abraham?
122
posted on
03/27/2002 10:35:52 AM PST
by
OWK
To: OWK
UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK. was decided March 25, 1898. The decision made it clear that you can't hold slaves under the guise of contract or debt.
The 13th Amendment stood, Libertarian doctrine once again failed. Our Constitution will outlive you, OWK.
123
posted on
03/27/2002 10:41:44 AM PST
by
Roscoe
To: OWK
Rand is dead.
124
posted on
03/27/2002 10:42:42 AM PST
by
Roscoe
To: Roscoe
Reduced to muttering about dead philosophers, our hero takes his meager intellectual pop-gun and goes home.
125
posted on
03/27/2002 10:44:45 AM PST
by
OWK
To: OWK
Well, I sign the contract voluntarily. We can call it indentured servitude instead. I think that the exact term is unimportant. I'm not going to accuse you of bringing back some kind of hereditary slaveowning.
To: OWK
A poor Thai girl sells herself to a pimp to settle her family's debts. He brings her to this country to work off the money as a captive in a brothel. The kind of thing that is in the news all the time.
Would you hold that the pimp is acting within his rights? Should she be required to remain captive till the debt is settled? If she runs away, how much force should the pimp be able to use recapturing her?
127
posted on
03/27/2002 10:45:58 AM PST
by
Roscoe
To: Ken H
What you said is that I wouldn't be able to get the government, with the 13th amdt, to enforce my contract, and you're right. I inferred--perhaps wrongly--that that was your only objection.
To: Roscoe
The 13th Amendment stands, Libertarian doctrine once again fails. You attribute a false doctrine to all 'libertarians'. - Knowingly. - Thats lying, roscoe.
129
posted on
03/27/2002 10:46:47 AM PST
by
tpaine
To: Khepera
So if you do indeed support Aquinas' then there is no way you can support the Libertarians. Have you been reading this thread?
To: Roscoe
A poor Thai girl sells herself to a pimp to settle her family's debts. Children may not morally enter into contract.
131
posted on
03/27/2002 10:47:40 AM PST
by
OWK
To: The Green Goblin
I understand your point, but Libertarians ARE moral liberals. Or to be more exact they are anarchist. They take their version of freedom to the extent that morality as we know it is abandoned and freedom has people doing wild things to the point of total anarchy!
Here in California where we had several million vote in a primary the Libertarians came out in full force to affect the outcome of the vote with there major 3000 votes.
They are a non-existent party in fact who are of no consequence. There biggest accomplishments in life as a party would be to probably be here on FR espousing the rights of everybody to use illegal drugs!
Until they can become more than the .003% of the vote they seem to be, they are hardly more than a joke pretending to defend warped positions in the name of Constitution.
There is hardly anything to respect about them. There only positions that seem rational I know of is there aim for a more limited government, lower taxes and reversing the laws that take innocent land owners property in drug seizures due to tenants behavior the landlord knew nothing of.
When I look at the Libertarian party beyond that there needs to be a warning label for the necessity of a tin-foiled hat to keep up with them.
To: tpaine
Some self-professed "libertarians" are fairly ignorant of their theology.
133
posted on
03/27/2002 10:48:57 AM PST
by
Roscoe
To: Roscoe
ROE v. WADE was decided January 22, 1973. The decision made it clear that you can surgically end the life of a fetus growing inside you.
The penumbras stood, Conservative doctrine once again failed. Our Constitution will outlive you, Roscoe.
(For the record, I consider this another time that the Court was wrong.)
To: OWK
Don't Libertarians oppose age of consent laws?
A poor 18 year old Thai girl sells herself to a pimp to settle her family's debts. He brings her to this country to work off the money as a captive in a brothel. The kind of thing that is in the news all the time.
Would you hold that the pimp is acting within his rights? Should she be required to remain captive till the debt is settled? If she runs away, how much force should the pimp be able to use recapturing her?
135
posted on
03/27/2002 10:51:02 AM PST
by
Roscoe
To: tpaine
Contracts that violate inalienable rights are not morally or legally enforceable. This position is self evident common senseI agree that it's true. I don't know that it's self-evident, though. I arrive at it because of my beliefs about God and the dignity of man. I'm just wondering how a libertarian would arrive at it.
[And it's] not just a 'libertarian' stance.
I'm certainly not saying that.
To: OWK
The God of the Trinity. God the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit. The one our country was founded on.
Not the one Mohamed molded in his image.
To: The Old Hoosier
I guess I'm missing something. Are you saying you do not support the libertarians? I have not followed all of your posts since it is difficult enough to answer those addressed to me.
138
posted on
03/27/2002 10:51:48 AM PST
by
Khepera
To: A CA Guy
The God of the Trinity. God the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit. The one our country was founded on. Isn't that the God of Abraham?
139
posted on
03/27/2002 10:52:28 AM PST
by
OWK
To: Roscoe
Just as many of you moral majority people are off the wall jihadists. -- Look to your mirror roscoe.
140
posted on
03/27/2002 10:52:36 AM PST
by
tpaine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 261-267 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson