Old Hoosier Apologizes to Libertarians

Thread from yesterday ^ | 3-26 | TOH

[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.

[MadameAxe]

The government also has a constitutional mandate to prevent slavery operating under the guise of contract or debt. See the 13th Amendment.

Oh look, it's more sophistry from Roscoe, sure as the sun rises in the morning. Do you even know what "under the guise" means? If the contract was signed in good faith, it doesn't even qualify for the definition you're waving around.

[dcwusmc]

As I said, you would be more at home on DU with that kind of sophomoric bilge. That is EXACTLY the kind of "thinking" that has led us to the point we are at now. "We can make the Constitution mean just what we want it to, if only we wish hard enough!!!"

There is a demoRAT liberal congress critter from the SF Bay area, Ellen Tauscher, who has said that the Constitution is like her old, blue dress. It was fine once but it doesn't fit her any more. Is THIS the kind of company you wish to keep? Then find a new home, for THIS site is dedicated to RESTORING the Constitution and our FREE Republic which was established by it! You ARE a worthless liberal!

[dcwusmc]

As I said, you would be more at home on DU with that kind of sophomoric bilge. That is EXACTLY the kind of "thinking" that has led us to the point we are at now. "We can make the Constitution mean just what we want it to, if only we wish hard enough!!!"

There is a demoRAT liberal congress critter from the SF Bay area, Ellen Tauscher, who has said that the Constitution is like her old, blue dress. It was fine once but it doesn't fit her any more. Is THIS the kind of company you wish to keep? Then find a new home, for THIS site is dedicated to RESTORING the Constitution and our FREE Republic which was established by it! You ARE a worthless liberal! Small wonder you support the war on drugs and all the unconstitutional muck it entails. That is JUST their thing! Render the Constitution null and void and the Socialist Moral Liberals can move in and have their way with our women and children. You and Ellen "Blue Dress (Does it have the Presidential Stain of Approval)" Tauscher and Teddy "No Pants" Kennedy and HilLIARy "For the Chillruns" Clinton. What a bunch!!! I would that you were all on the same deserted island together... you deserve each other!

[William Terrell]

I am paraphrasing the Congress site on this issue.

Did you forget that Congress, the House and the Senate, were created by the Constitution? What the Congress says about the the Constitution means exactly Jack. Like dogs discussing God.

Unless, of course, you give that representative branch power by your word. You word is added to like words and the Constitution takes on the character of legislation. Remember, the enacting clause for the Constitution is the Preamble, and you know who used the sovereign terms "ordain" and "establish", don't you? You're one of those.

"Living Constitution", my ass.

[Roscoe]

If the contract was signed in good faith, it doesn't even qualify for the definition you're waving around.

Illegal contracts are unenforceable. Claiming that indentured servitude and peonage aren't really slavery because of contract is the sort of sophistry our courts reject.

[Roscoe]

I suppose you also agree with Roe v Wade...

No, that would be the Libertarian Party.

[Roscoe]

Selling one's self into slavery occurred throughout history. Slaves, such as skilled carpenters, sometimes would be allowed to buy themselves out of slavery in the old South by selling services to neighboring plantation owners.

[William Terrell]

I, the undersigned, in exchange for $50,000, hereby promise, under penalty of corporal punishment to be administered by the payer (master), to perform all menial tasks he asks me to perform, every day for the remainder of my life. I permanently surrender my right to leave and work for anyone else, unless the payer chooses to dissolve this contract. I understand that this contract cannot be dissolved by me, the undersigned.

The above isn't indenture. It's chattel slavery, which is what Blackstone is talking about.

[B Knotts]

Well, I'm not an LP member, just a libertarian GOP, so maybe that explains it. :-)

[The Old Hoosier]

Assume that the payment is to release me from some kind of crushing debt.

[MadameAxe]

How it reads to me is that if there was fraud involved in the contract (like the horrible cases of girls overseas who are told they are going to industrial jobs and then packed off to brothels), that would be invalid.

I am curious as to why you think it's better that someone who reneges on a contract be imprisoned if they refuse to make good, than for the person the contract was made with to enforce it, as agreed. Imprisonment is a cost to everyone and of benefit to no one, unless the one being imprisoned has harmed someone and is likely to harm others.

[William Terrell]

Assume that the payment is to release me from some kind of crushing debt.

Still would violate the essential elements of a valid contract. Until the contract is executed you would not have the money. The moment such a contract is executed, the $50,000 you get would belong to your master. He could just choose to not give it to your debtors. He could argue in any court that making the contract cancelable by him only made you his chattel. Chattel doesn't and can't own anything by definition.

[MadameAxe]

Re above: Should have been: harmed, or tried to harm.

But now I have made myself think of loan sharks. Hmm.

[gunshy]

Roe vs Wade. It's my body and I have the right to do with it as I wish.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

Not withstanding the particular decision you cite, the point is that if you decide to freely enter into the contract/obligation, then it is not slavery, by definition.

[Roscoe]

Libertarians defending slavery.

[Roscoe]

The above isn't indenture. It's chattel slavery

Both forms of slavery are illegal under the 13th Amendment, Libertarian opposition to our Constitution notwithstanding.

[William Terrell]

Both forms of slavery are illegal under the 13th Amendment, Libertarian opposition to our Constitution notwithstanding.

You're right. Such a contract as he was talking about would not be allowed under the federal constitution.

My understanding is that libertarians don't oppose the federal constitution; they want the federal government to stay within its limits, with includes the 9th and 10th amendments. And those amendments would (as they supposed to) make certain activities regulatable only at the state level.

They don't realize that to do that, citizenship would have to return to being established at the state level and the 14th amendment repealed, which would automatically make the states sovereign again with respect to the federal. And hell would freeze over before the feds did that, voluntarily.

Seems few people realize just how much change the war between the states made to the structure of government the founders set up. I think that's because only relatively recently have the feds begun to dare exercise the powers actually transfered to them in 1868.

[dcwusmc]

Actually, FedGov started to do that during the Wilson administration when the Supremes gave that phoney ruling that Roscoe cites, "proving" that the draft is not involuntary servitude... then came the incredibly rotten 16th and 17th amendments and then came the "New Deal," the effects of which are so beloved by authoritarians everywhere, INCLUDING those on this site. However, IMNSHO, the 17th amendment was one of the MAJOR contributors to the FedGov behemoth, as it removed about the last vestiges of State oversight on FedGov activities, namely the APPOINTMENT of Senators by either governors or State Legislatures... since then FedGov has been almost TOTALLY unrestrained... and we are paying a heavy price for that.

[Roscoe]

Actually, our nation's first National Conscription Act was passed by the Second Congress, and signed by President George Washington on May 8, 1792.

Read a book.