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.

[tpaine]

Roscoe, -- deaf to all reason? -- Ain't that the truth.

[B Knotts]

This is how libertarians deal with people who disagree. They call them names.

You know...at least one of the people on your ping list is a libertarian. Namely, me. I don't recall doing a lot of name-calling.

[Roscoe]

Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918). The Court's analysis, in full, of the Thirteenth Amendment issue raised by a compulsory military draft was the following: ''As we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.''

[Roscoe]

Your generousity of spirit shows that you are a true conservative.

[KC Burke]

I thank you.

[Khepera]

Maybe your exampt.

[dcwusmc]

Yes, indeed, your liberality shines through loud and clear, like the slimey shine on a dead fish. The "Living Constitution" argument, so beloved of the Left in this country. And anathema to the intent of the Framers and to Freedom. But you don't care, since freedom to your ilk is to do whatever FedGov tells you to... and if some innocent gets gunned down by feddies, well, too bad, but you gotta break eggs to have an omelet... it's only a FEW dead innocent kids and retirees and bystanders... they MUSTA been doing SOMETHING wrong to wind up in front of the Feddie's gun...

You are totally reprehensible and without honor or ANY socially redeeming values.

[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.

[dcwusmc]

Hey, if it WALKS like a duck and QUACKS like a duck, it sure ain't a spotted owl, Roscoe. I suppose you also agree with Roe v Wade as good judicial accomplishment and correctness, too. You HAVE to if you believe the bilge you cited.

[LowOiL]

At no time have I said hey you're stupid. Nor have I depicted any one as a retarded redneck or fool. You will find several such references to me in that manor right here on this thread.

You tell it like it is girl !!! It made me shudder to see such low vile name calling against you. Believe you me, It was noticed that you took the high road and they the low (the lowest of low for that matter)

[LowOiL]

Ditto for you Roscoe (see post above), you took the high road while all kinds of names were flung. You have my respect.

[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.

[tpaine]

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. - 208 posted by tpaine

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?

Yep.

Would you agree with me that this amendment was properly, necessary and prudently adopted at the close of the civil war

Yep.

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"?

Gee, - I should check with me lawyer, but I guess so. -- If I understand your point.

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?

'Not tantamount'? - No, it isn't equal to defending slavery. -- Was it you that made an earlier comment on word games?

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?

Give me examples, and we may be able to discuss it.

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?

Golly Gee, beats me.. Is this some defining point that proves libertarian idiocy?

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

Perhaps you should consider that I may not care whether you give such a dense & qualified 'defense'.

[A CA Guy]

It's is not only an arguement, but how the Legislature handles it today. It wasn't done to make light of the Constitution, but to not have it reduced to nothing by adding amendment after amendment. If we amend it as needed for you, the 3000 amendments would reder it useless compared to how we view it today.

If we were still living in the 1700s we would not have to do that, but the world goes forward despite how you feel about it.

I know you were trainded to basically break things and kill for a living for the country as a soldier, but not all thinks can be as easy and straight forward as the training you recieved top defended this country with.

Alas, nothing in life seems simple any more. Especially a modern society.

[William Terrell]

Every sale iplies a price, a quid pro quo, an equivalent given to the seller in lieu of what he transfers to the buyer; but what equivalent can be given for life and liberty, both of which, in absolute slavery, are held to be in the master's disposal? His property also, the very price he seems to receive, devolves ipso facto to his master the instant he becomes his slave. In this case the buyer gives nothing, and the seller receives nothing. Of what validity, then, can a sale be which desteroys the very principles upon which all sales are founded?

Blackstone

[dcwusmc]

You just keep on with your moral liberal mantra about the LIVING Constitution. You are a liberal who would be better off at DU than at a website dedicated to the Constitutional Republic we were given by the founders. And to the RESTORATION of the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. You and your ilk are filth, suited to do nothing but tear down our Republic and make us a mirror image of every rotten socialist nanny-state country that ever existed....

[KC Burke]

Perhaps you should consider that I may not care whether you give such a dense & qualified 'defense'.

I did that, prior to posting, but deceided to give my honest effort regardless.

[tpaine]

I consider such efforts at word games as being more amusing than honest, but suit yourself.

[Eagle Eye]

I guess I missed the question. Oh well.

Why should the government decide if you should sell yourself into slavery or not? It shouldn't. (Some of us would call that an enlistment contract!)

However, don't you think that $50k is a little cheap for a lifetime?

[A CA Guy]

Nobody is doing away with the Constitution, but it would be radically changed by amendments if they went the route you prefer.
The negative side of all the amendments would be the diminishing of the document to where it would only be an old piece of paper.

I am paraphrasing the Congress site on this issue.

As far as liberal, look in the mirror. If you are for things most people know is wrong from simple ethics, you are a moral liberal. Such as in your stance on drugs as I have read you.

No matter how you refer to the Constitution, it was written in the 1700s to serve the beginning of our country. It was the beginning and cornerstone of where we started. Nobody knew the future in the 1700s to create the perfect Constitution that could fully serve all future needs. It was determined to handle it as the country has. As I stated, at times it looks like a yoga move in their interpretation, but I can see where how they handle it is not that bad compared to 13,000 amendments.