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.
Simple.
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.
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.
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.
Should you wish to voluntarily fulfill the terms of the contract, then there shouldn't be a problem.
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.
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.
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.
You want to be a 'Personal Assistant' to Rosie O'Donnell?
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.
You alread do that everyday. It's called a job.