Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

I welcome comments from any Libertarians who believe that the government should have the power to prevent me from signing this contract, and would like to explain why:

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.

1 posted on 03/26/2002 7:30:11 AM PST by The Old Hoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
To: The Old Hoosier
From reading a bit of the original thread, I think the problem is that most people consider "voluntary slavery" to be an oxymoron. One can not freely enter into slavery.
2 posted on 03/26/2002 7:45:55 AM PST by KayEyeDoubleDee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: The Old Hoosier
On the other hand, I know people who think that merely being employed by another person is a form of slavery.
3 posted on 03/26/2002 7:47:08 AM PST by KayEyeDoubleDee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: The Old Hoosier
Bump of interest!
5 posted on 03/26/2002 7:51:51 AM PST by WyldKard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: The Old Hoosier
The only involvement the government should have is to enforce, if necessary, the contract you and the payer signed.

Simple.

6 posted on 03/26/2002 8:06:41 AM PST by RJCogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: The Old Hoosier
If you're really a Hoosier, I would refer you to the Indiana Supreme Court case of Weaver v. American Oil for the notion that in cases where the disparity of bargaining power is so great that a contract isn't truly voluntary, the contract is unconscionable.

Even under wholly voluntary circumstance, contracts contrary to the public order and morality have been forbidden. I can't begin to recall the caption of the case, but the example always given in law school was the lottery among British shipwreck survivors to kill and eat one of there number as a way to sustain the remainder. At least they were well fed when hanged.

8 posted on 03/26/2002 8:11:56 AM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: The Old Hoosier
Two things are required to morally enter into contract. A statement of affirmation of the terms being agreed to, and comprehension of those terms, and their consequences.

As a libertarian, I recognize the right of consenting adult individuals to enter into contract to mutually agreed terms. But in order to qualify as a consenting adult capable of administering one's own rights, an individual must be of sound mind (otherwise the comprehension of terms and consequences comes into question).

I would consider any contract entered into by sane consenting adults to be morally binding. I think a good case could be made however, questioning the sanity of an individual who would surrender their life and their perpetual labor for $50,000.

9 posted on 03/26/2002 8:28:20 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: The Old Hoosier
Crow is best as an entre when served without garnishment.

But here goes....

You say: ...why should the government be able to prevent me?

Many conservative would hold that the Constitution was a written document doing many tasks in establishing our Republic. One of these tasks was preserving ordered liberty. Our Constitution was a practical tool, not an ideological construct or philosophy-made-whole.

It contained the practical tools of politics, including a method of Amendment for prudent political purpose.

Seeing that a great war had been fought, greatly devestating the nation in all regions, the XIII Amendment was passed to permanantly remove one of the underlying issues that fostered the conflict. As contract law and philosophy were insuffient to resolve the issue, save by warfare, and insufficient to resolve it in the future, practical and prudent politics (political force) was utilized by a set process to place an issue outside of the realm of arising again.

Now, were temporary imbalances between the victor and the vanquished in place to foster the super majority necessary for this amendment? Surely. But it happened and we are better off for it.

So, in answer to your question, as the Constitution outlines:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It would be hard to say that the passage of the Thirteenth at that time didn't meet the critera in bold. Furthermore, our national imputus was outlined in the Delaration of Independence and the following shows the reasonableness of alterations for due cause:
..and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--
The framers determined an Amendment scheme, not based upon a rigid philosophy, ideology, theology or dogma, but instead based upon a prudent written prescriptive method, meant to allow the Republic to free itself from the "Object" mentioned in that paragraph, however it might arise.

There are methods of Contract Law that could concievably produce what amounts to a voluntary servitude as opposed to involuntary, but people of more extensive legal background that I will need to illuminate how common law principles of "employment at will" interface with Contract Law without a "time certain" in the contract. I think that is a red hering for debate as your question centered around what government should be allowed to do, not what marginal constructs are possible that simulate the state of slavery.

10 posted on 03/26/2002 8:30:48 AM PST by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: The Old Hoosier
I think your "owner" would not be able to use the power of the government to enforce the contract due to the Thirteenth Amendment.

Should you wish to voluntarily fulfill the terms of the contract, then there shouldn't be a problem.

12 posted on 03/26/2002 8:32:55 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: The Old Hoosier
As an aside, anyone able to lay their hands on Forrest MacDonald's study of the intellectual origins of the Constitution, Novus Ordo Seclorum should read the pages he devotes to the discussion of the colonial nature of slavery and the probable perception of the populace and framers. He makes some very interesting observations about the comparisons available to the colonials between existing europeon serfdom and colonial slavery, more benign then than later.

I was reading that this last week and while it is not at hand, it has some real insight into how these framers could allow the practice to become intitutionalized.

18 posted on 03/26/2002 8:47:05 AM PST by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: The Old Hoosier
Libertarians would support the legalization of peonage, indentured servitude and some other forms of slavery outlawed by our Thirteenth Amendment.
22 posted on 03/26/2002 9:53:56 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: The Old Hoosier
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.

Well, I'm not a libertarian, but I wouldn't prevent you from signing it (unless you have children).

Seems like you're selling yourself cheap, but, maybe not.

26 posted on 03/26/2002 11:00:15 AM PST by Taliesan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: The Old Hoosier
I understand that this contract cannot be dissolved by me, the undersigned.

Any such contract would not be enforceable in its strictest form. If you violate the terms of a civil contract, you are liable for civil penalties -- namely money. If you break the contract and have no money you could declare bankruptcy.

I believe there is another clause in the Constitution prohibiting imprisonment for debt.

Such contracts are frequently signed by artists and performers -- not lifetime, but it probably seems like it. they are also frequently broken.

30 posted on 03/26/2002 11:31:33 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: The Old Hoosier
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.

You want to be a 'Personal Assistant' to Rosie O'Donnell?

39 posted on 03/26/2002 12:18:32 PM PST by Cogadh na Sith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: The Old Hoosier
"Tpaine and Eagle Eye still haven't given direct answers, but I'll mention it here when they do, and eat more crow."

I answered directly at # 410 on that thread, and you did not challenge that answer. -- Instead you asked another silly question, which I answered in turn. -- Then you left to post this bit of bull, based on your lie above.

For shame. You should have to eat your own BS, not crow.

49 posted on 03/26/2002 4:20:27 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: The Old Hoosier;*SASU; JMJ333; Tourist Guy; EODGUY; proud2bRC; abandon; Khepera; Dakmar...
Too bad the Libertarians choose to worship Thomas Jefferson instead of God. Thomas Jefferson is irrelevant. It is God who holds the answer to all our problems.
52 posted on 03/26/2002 4:38:31 PM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: The Old Hoosier
"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?"

You alread do that everyday. It's called a job.

54 posted on 03/26/2002 4:40:29 PM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kevin Curry, Cultural Jihad
This is the classy way to respond when you've been shown to be wrong. I figure you guys are about 200 acknowlegements behind.
143 posted on 03/27/2002 10:54:20 AM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: The Old Hoosier
Without going through a 380+ post thread, I don't quite understand what you were proposing? Were you asking libertarians to argue for government intervention in such a question? A libertarian would argue the opposite. It's not the government's place to protect you from your own bad choices. Were you to enter into such an agreement as the result of trickery by the other party, then that would be another matter. The government does have a role in preventing the agressive use of force by one party upon another and fraud is an agressive use of force.
153 posted on 03/27/2002 11:06:07 AM PST by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: The Old Hoosier
Why are you apologizing to the Libs? Unless they win a court case making you apologize (in monetary terms, of course), then you don't have to do it. That's the way they like to do things.
161 posted on 03/27/2002 11:28:43 AM PST by Moonman62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: The Old Hoosier
Ah but the real question here should be whether your decendants could sue for reperations...and who would they sue?
191 posted on 03/27/2002 1:09:08 PM PST by rightisright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson