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.

[OWK]

Don't Libertarians oppose age of consent laws?

No.

[A CA Guy]

There = their twice. Sorry!

[breakem]

This is the classy way to respond when you've been shown to be wrong. I figure you guys are about 200 acknowlegements behind.

[Roscoe]

ROE v. WADE was decided January 22, 1973.

The Libertarian Party supports legalized abortion. Roe v Wade may eventually be dismantled, but the clear meaning and intent of the 13th Amendment will stand.

Sorry, you'll just have to go to Somalia for your chattel slaves.

[summer]

Re your post #17 - Believe it or not, when Cher sue Sonny for a divorce, she claimed "indentured servitude" as one of the grounds for divorce.

[Teacher317]

Libertarians ARE moral liberals. Or to be more exact they are anarchist

That's odd, I never considered the Constitution to be the foundation of an anarchist state. I thought that only the hard-core statists felt that way about America's founding documents.

[Capt Phoenix]

Gentles! You've let him do it again. Hasn't it clicked yet?
Roscoe isn't a debater; he's a saboteur. He and a few others always jump into any thread invloving any topic related to libertarian thought and begin throwing insults. They hope to provoke name-calling (and thus destroy any rational discussion), and they are nearly always successful. He has been successfull this time too. Didn't you notice that what had been a calm and rational debate about the role of contracts and contract law within a free society before he showed up, degenerated into purile name calling as soon as he got someone to respond to his insults?
This seems to be a common tactic for a number of people here in various topics. Evolution Vs Creationism lasts about 25 posts before the saboteurs jump in with the name-calling and destroy it. Abortion usually lasts less than 10. In every case the objective is clear: Stop the debate. Don't let people think. If we turn it into a flame war there can be no rational discussion. Over and over.
My advice is to ignore Roscoe. Just don't respond. Who cares if he crows and cackles that that is "victory"? You know his real victory is to get you to respond. Or, perhaps you could just preface your discussions with "Roscoe is trying to sabotage this discussion with his name-calling again, so I'm ignoring him. Now as to your point, Mr Neo-Conster, about the role of using force to defend property in a free society:"

I do realize that you feel letting him rave personal insults demonstrates the anti-intelectual nature of your opposition, but that point has been made. And the flame wars simply aren't fun to read. I rarely bother to come to freerepublic anymore, and even more rarely post, simply because I'm bored of hearing "Roscoe Rants" over and over. Please....

[summer]

sue = sued / and

"indentured" servitude = involuntary servitude

[summer]

See my corrections in post #148.

[FreeTally]

Just keep on bearing false witness, Roscoe. People such as OWK, tpaine and myself may ignore you, but someone else wont.

[The Old Hoosier]

Yes.

[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!

These kinds of broad-brush statements show me that you're not at all informed about the nature of libertarianism.

[Redcloak]

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.

[Khepera]

So to clarify you are saying you do not support the libertarians. If this is the case then you are a very wise man or woman as the case may be.

[tpaine]

Contracts that violate inalienable rights are not morally or legally enforceable. This position is self evident common sense

I 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.

It is self evident that I have free will. Only force, [or reason] can change my behavior. Once I am a reasoning adult, you do not have the right to force me to change my non violent private behavior. -- We make constitutions to govern/regulate public behavior, to enforce valid law [& valid contracts]. not to enforce prohibitions on rights & liberty.

[Roscoe]

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.

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

[Equality 7-2521]

A valid point which I should definitely take under advisement. Since I don't jump into the fray very often, I didn't realize that I was simply presenting myself as a target for Roscoe's inanity. It didn't take me long to realize, however, that he failed to state which of the facts presented in my first post he disagreed with--even after being asked several times.

[Roscoe]

Supporting chattel slavery is inane, opposing it isn't.

[tpaine]

We all realise that roscoe, CJ and their clique are phony disrupters.

But they're the only game in town. - And, -- they are easy.

[A CA Guy]

The Constitution is the foundation we started with. The corner stone of our beloved country. If you go to our own government's websites about the topic of the Constitution you will see how over the years it was "handled" to maintain it in any form! It is a respected part of our history. It is in it's spirit we live today.

But rather than amend it up the kazoo, the Legislature and Judiciary agreed to reinterpretation of it to accommodate modern times. Even if the reinterpretation seemed to require yoga to get to where it is in some places now!

Keep in mind that the Constitution was written in the 1700s when few had use of any form electricity, much less indoor toilets and would have to have 2000 amendments to stay intact today.

So rather than have 2000 amendments you have an understanding for decades between the Judiciary and the Legislature that the Legislature would create the laws and Judiciary would rule for them instead of having 2000 amendments to the original. The Judiciary also is the balance that prevents the Legislature from going too far in a wrong direction.

The logical reasoning for this is that if we advance ourselves another 200 years we would need at that time perhaps 13,000 amendments to the Constitution and our corner stone would become meaningless to follow with thousands of amendments.

Now we have the Spirit of the Constitution intact and the modern laws will come and go as modern society needs them adjusted for an orderly and mostly free society.

I would be the first to agree with anyone that this method seems far shy of a perfect method of handling the Constitution, but we are all flawed human beings and thus far this is the best they have accommodate a modern USA.

I have always said though I disagree with Libertarians on many issues I am all for them going to the Judiciary to challenge their valid grievances. On one or more issues they will find the courts would rule in their favor. The issues have to be brought before the Judiciary for them to practice their balance over the Legislature. So I even tell Libertarians to go for it! But they will get laughed out of court on most of their issues in court and they know it!
I do think they can reverse property seizure laws in a drug bust regarding an innocent landlord who knew nothing of a tenants behavior. I think they have a valid point to go to the Judiciary on in that issue.