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.

[Khepera]

Support for Abortion. Do not twll me that Republican support for abortion is a conservative Ideal either. No more then McCain is a conservative.

[Roscoe]

As OWK and others have suggested, the initial voluntary act would render the future subjugation and captivity of the slave voluntary as well. That's how indentured servitude worked prior to our 13th Amendment.

You have their platform statement, you've seen their attempts at justification in this thread.

[Roscoe]

Prohibitions against slavery are a "nanny state?" What a twisted philosophy Libertarianism is.

[Khepera]

Yes Republicans are liberals too ... I support conservatives. You have no complaint. I don't know where you think I am going wrong exactly but I suspect you just do not like my opinion. Geee whiz thats just too damn bad.

[tpaine]

What a twisted philosophy Libertarianism is.

The only thing 'twisted' here, -- is your mind as it regards libertarian philosophy.

[KC Burke]

Rather than justifying slavery under some convoluted form, I see their arguements just being formulated in a defense of metaphysical "contract" and "rights". So what else is new?

Fair debate and honest expression of differences on politics are hearty institutions on this forum. Expecting either side to be totaly consistant in internet dialogue is ridiculous. Should I hold you responsible for inconsistancies of every poster who sides with you? Certainly not.

The historical record is clear. The Federalists ignored the cautions of the Anti-Federalists and the continuance of slavery and the eventual civil war made the 13th a politcal remedy. LOL, libertarians are politically mad, IMHO, for lots of other reasons but some word games here don't do either side any justice.

[Roscoe]

"Indentured service is by definition voluntary. The individual subjecting themselves to indenture, does so, voluntarily. If he did not grant his permission to enter into service, he would not be indentured." OWK

Seems to go beyond mere nuance.

[Khepera]

This is how libertarians deal with people who disagree. They call them names. They do it over and over because they don't know what else to do. Bankrupt of the ability to argue effectively or dispute your factual statements. It is very typical of their party in general. Most of them are young and immature but you will get used to that. Many of them do not have families to protect or any understanding of the dangers to which they expose the familys they have.

[Roscoe]

After a while you become deaf to it.

[rightisright]

Ah but the real question here should be whether your decendants could sue for reperations...and who would they sue?

[tpaine]

All rights are inextricably linked with property rights. Such rights as the freedom from involuntary servitude as well as the freedom of speech and the freedom of press are based on self-ownership. Our bodies are our property every bit as much as is justly acquired land or material objects.

We further hold that the owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others.

and they go on to amplify "dispose of" in relation to euthenasia etc. correct.
But where do they claim the such disposal can be made to violate what in the previous paragraph they refer to as a prohibition? I don't get it.

You lost me here. What prohibition?

I suspect that once again, some concept is being taken out of overall context, and misunderstood.

[The Old Hoosier]

Well, for one, see post 175.

[The Old Hoosier]

And here's RJ Cogburn's response to this thread:

"The only involvement the government should have is to enforce, if necessary, the contract you and the payer signed."

[The Old Hoosier]

Also see #9. OWK says that if I'm sane, I can do it.

[Redcloak]

Prohibitions against voluntary agreements between private parties are characteristics of a nanny state.

[EODGUY]

I regret I couldn't respond earlier because of computer problems, but it is clear that your friend is clearly devoid of a logical argument or a competent/sincere response to your posts. He resorts to one-liners and juvenile conduct usually favored by the left, i.e.: name-calling.

I don't know if I will get back to this thread, so please ping me when he gets to the "you're a racist/bigot/homophobe" stage......based on his previous conduct, it will only be a matter of time.

God bless,

EODGUY

[KC Burke]

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.

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)

[tpaine]

Roscoe uses twisted logic in his mind to make silly generalised baiting & bashing remarks about those he considers libertarians.

Remarking upon this, -- his neverending obsession, -- is not namecalling.

It is self defense.

[dcwusmc]

Obviously, Roscoe, you have never served in the armed forces if you can spew that bilge with a straight face. You sign a contract for minimally six years and if you try to leave early they can hunt you down and lock you up or (in war time) execute you for violating your labor contract. However, only our FedGov masters are allowed to keep slaves and/or indentured servants, right???