[tpaine]

Roscoe at 177 is attempting to give the example of libertarian calls for allowable slavery contracts that I said was required to make these outlandish criticisms at my 174. The prohibition is the "words "freedom from involuntary servitude" in the first paragraph which is there to substantiate arguements of self-ownership and he claims that the "dispose of" aguement of the second paragraph means to allow such servitude.

Sorry, but trying to figure out what roscoes arguments mean are beyond me. If he can't make sense, why should we speculate?

Going clear back to my stuff on the first page guys, aren't there some "time certain" issues to enforcable contracts that would make the whole contract basis of applicability of contract arguements to this topic moot? (KC Burke mutters, that he is in a hell of a mess trying to promote fair arguement tactics for tpaine and OWK, when he usually can't find a postition of theirs he agrees with....but honesty has got to count for something....grrrr)

Do you mean, -- would a lifetime personal service contract be unenforceable? -- I don't think so, as priests, nuns, monks, etc, in effect, - make them with their vows.

Nope, I view the involuntry aspect of servitude as the defining point of slavery. -- Even a soldier is not required to obey unconstitutional orders. - Or so they told me.

A slave must obey authority, or pay with his life. Convicts, for instance, do.

[KC Burke]

Would you agree with me that the 13th Amendment was meant to outlaw slavery and involuntary servitude by banning their existance no matter what contrivance of contract might be asserted by the party making claim to the slavery or servitude of another? Would you agree with me that this amendment was properly, necessary and prudently adopted at the close of the civil war and had very little to do with overall aspects of contract law except when it might be perverted to re-institute or protect the "peculiar institution"?

Would you agree with me that libertarians' general defense of contract law on all issues due to their emphasis on a "rights supremacy" view of politics is not tantamount to defending "some" aspect of slavery under a contract form of interpretation?

Would you agree with me that there are distinctions that can be made in the real world between a theoretically moral contract, a legal contract and a legally enforcable contract based on not just contract law but also Constitutional law?

Would you agree with me that Anti-Federalist libertarians warned that late or insufficient Enumerated Rights needed in the original unammended Constitution could prolong slavery and lead to civil war long before such was obvious to the Federalists?

If the answer is uniformly yes, then perhaps I am in your unqualified defense here.