Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Old Hoosier Apologizes to Libertarians
Thread from yesterday ^ | 3-26 | TOH

Posted on 03/26/2002 7:30:11 AM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Free Republic; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: indenturedservitude; libertarian; sasu
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-267 next last
To: Roscoe
Roscoe, -- deaf to all reason? -- Ain't that the truth.
201 posted on 03/27/2002 1:27:58 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
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.

202 posted on 03/27/2002 1:29:03 PM PST by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
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.''
203 posted on 03/27/2002 1:32:36 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
Your generousity of spirit shows that you are a true conservative.
204 posted on 03/27/2002 1:34:39 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
I thank you.
205 posted on 03/27/2002 1:37:16 PM PST by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Maybe your exampt.
206 posted on 03/27/2002 1:38:26 PM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
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.

207 posted on 03/27/2002 1:40:46 PM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

208 posted on 03/27/2002 2:00:59 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
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.
209 posted on 03/27/2002 2:13:55 PM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
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)

210 posted on 03/27/2002 2:17:09 PM PST by LowOiL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Ditto for you Roscoe (see post above), you took the high road while all kinds of names were flung. You have my respect.
211 posted on 03/27/2002 2:19:32 PM PST by LowOiL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: 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? 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.

212 posted on 03/27/2002 2:28:28 PM PST by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
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'.

213 posted on 03/27/2002 3:00:36 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
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.

214 posted on 03/27/2002 3:00:50 PM PST by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier; All
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

215 posted on 03/27/2002 3:01:56 PM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
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....
216 posted on 03/27/2002 3:13:29 PM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
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.

217 posted on 03/27/2002 5:24:28 PM PST by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
I consider such efforts at word games as being more amusing than honest, but suit yourself.
218 posted on 03/27/2002 5:38:13 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
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?

219 posted on 03/27/2002 5:45:19 PM PST by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
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.

220 posted on 03/27/2002 5:50:30 PM PST by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

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

Oh look, it's more sophistry from Roscoe, sure as the sun rises in the morning. Do you even know what "under the guise" means? If the contract was signed in good faith, it doesn't even qualify for the definition you're waving around.

221 posted on 03/27/2002 6:32:24 PM PST by MadameAxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
As I said, you would be more at home on DU with that kind of sophomoric bilge. That is EXACTLY the kind of "thinking" that has led us to the point we are at now. "We can make the Constitution mean just what we want it to, if only we wish hard enough!!!"

There is a demoRAT liberal congress critter from the SF Bay area, Ellen Tauscher, who has said that the Constitution is like her old, blue dress. It was fine once but it doesn't fit her any more. Is THIS the kind of company you wish to keep? Then find a new home, for THIS site is dedicated to RESTORING the Constitution and our FREE Republic which was established by it! You ARE a worthless liberal!

222 posted on 03/27/2002 7:10:45 PM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
As I said, you would be more at home on DU with that kind of sophomoric bilge. That is EXACTLY the kind of "thinking" that has led us to the point we are at now. "We can make the Constitution mean just what we want it to, if only we wish hard enough!!!"

There is a demoRAT liberal congress critter from the SF Bay area, Ellen Tauscher, who has said that the Constitution is like her old, blue dress. It was fine once but it doesn't fit her any more. Is THIS the kind of company you wish to keep? Then find a new home, for THIS site is dedicated to RESTORING the Constitution and our FREE Republic which was established by it! You ARE a worthless liberal! Small wonder you support the war on drugs and all the unconstitutional muck it entails. That is JUST their thing! Render the Constitution null and void and the Socialist Moral Liberals can move in and have their way with our women and children. You and Ellen "Blue Dress (Does it have the Presidential Stain of Approval)" Tauscher and Teddy "No Pants" Kennedy and HilLIARy "For the Chillruns" Clinton. What a bunch!!! I would that you were all on the same deserted island together... you deserve each other!

223 posted on 03/27/2002 7:17:34 PM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
I am paraphrasing the Congress site on this issue.

Did you forget that Congress, the House and the Senate, were created by the Constitution? What the Congress says about the the Constitution means exactly Jack. Like dogs discussing God.

Unless, of course, you give that representative branch power by your word. You word is added to like words and the Constitution takes on the character of legislation. Remember, the enacting clause for the Constitution is the Preamble, and you know who used the sovereign terms "ordain" and "establish", don't you? You're one of those.

"Living Constitution", my ass.

224 posted on 03/27/2002 8:28:06 PM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: MadameAxe
If the contract was signed in good faith, it doesn't even qualify for the definition you're waving around.

Illegal contracts are unenforceable. Claiming that indentured servitude and peonage aren't really slavery because of contract is the sort of sophistry our courts reject.

225 posted on 03/27/2002 11:01:23 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
I suppose you also agree with Roe v Wade...

No, that would be the Libertarian Party.

226 posted on 03/27/2002 11:04:55 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Selling one's self into slavery occurred throughout history. Slaves, such as skilled carpenters, sometimes would be allowed to buy themselves out of slavery in the old South by selling services to neighboring plantation owners.
227 posted on 03/27/2002 11:10:55 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
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.

The above isn't indenture. It's chattel slavery, which is what Blackstone is talking about.

228 posted on 03/28/2002 4:07:37 AM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
Well, I'm not an LP member, just a libertarian GOP, so maybe that explains it. :-)
229 posted on 03/28/2002 4:32:09 AM PST by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Assume that the payment is to release me from some kind of crushing debt.
230 posted on 03/28/2002 5:50:41 AM PST by The Old Hoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
How it reads to me is that if there was fraud involved in the contract (like the horrible cases of girls overseas who are told they are going to industrial jobs and then packed off to brothels), that would be invalid.

I am curious as to why you think it's better that someone who reneges on a contract be imprisoned if they refuse to make good, than for the person the contract was made with to enforce it, as agreed. Imprisonment is a cost to everyone and of benefit to no one, unless the one being imprisoned has harmed someone and is likely to harm others.

231 posted on 03/28/2002 6:03:22 AM PST by MadameAxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
Assume that the payment is to release me from some kind of crushing debt.

Still would violate the essential elements of a valid contract. Until the contract is executed you would not have the money. The moment such a contract is executed, the $50,000 you get would belong to your master. He could just choose to not give it to your debtors. He could argue in any court that making the contract cancelable by him only made you his chattel. Chattel doesn't and can't own anything by definition.

232 posted on 03/28/2002 6:05:12 AM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: MadameAxe
Re above: Should have been: harmed, or tried to harm.

But now I have made myself think of loan sharks. Hmm.

233 posted on 03/28/2002 6:07:59 AM PST by MadameAxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee
Roe vs Wade. It's my body and I have the right to do with it as I wish.
234 posted on 03/28/2002 6:22:33 AM PST by gunshy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gunshy
Not withstanding the particular decision you cite, the point is that if you decide to freely enter into the contract/obligation, then it is not slavery, by definition.
235 posted on 03/28/2002 6:39:30 AM PST by KayEyeDoubleDee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: MadameAxe
Libertarians defending slavery.
236 posted on 03/28/2002 8:35:43 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
The above isn't indenture. It's chattel slavery

Both forms of slavery are illegal under the 13th Amendment, Libertarian opposition to our Constitution notwithstanding.

237 posted on 03/28/2002 8:39:12 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Both forms of slavery are illegal under the 13th Amendment, Libertarian opposition to our Constitution notwithstanding.

You're right. Such a contract as he was talking about would not be allowed under the federal constitution.

My understanding is that libertarians don't oppose the federal constitution; they want the federal government to stay within its limits, with includes the 9th and 10th amendments. And those amendments would (as they supposed to) make certain activities regulatable only at the state level.

They don't realize that to do that, citizenship would have to return to being established at the state level and the 14th amendment repealed, which would automatically make the states sovereign again with respect to the federal. And hell would freeze over before the feds did that, voluntarily.

Seems few people realize just how much change the war between the states made to the structure of government the founders set up. I think that's because only relatively recently have the feds begun to dare exercise the powers actually transfered to them in 1868.

238 posted on 03/28/2002 10:36:01 AM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Actually, FedGov started to do that during the Wilson administration when the Supremes gave that phoney ruling that Roscoe cites, "proving" that the draft is not involuntary servitude... then came the incredibly rotten 16th and 17th amendments and then came the "New Deal," the effects of which are so beloved by authoritarians everywhere, INCLUDING those on this site. However, IMNSHO, the 17th amendment was one of the MAJOR contributors to the FedGov behemoth, as it removed about the last vestiges of State oversight on FedGov activities, namely the APPOINTMENT of Senators by either governors or State Legislatures... since then FedGov has been almost TOTALLY unrestrained... and we are paying a heavy price for that.
239 posted on 03/28/2002 10:57:59 AM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Actually, our nation's first National Conscription Act was passed by the Second Congress, and signed by President George Washington on May 8, 1792.

Read a book.

240 posted on 03/28/2002 11:18:43 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
All well and good, but wrong is wrong no matter WHO does it or who says it's OK... and no amount of barbra striesand can make involuntary servitude anything but wrong. Just as no Roe v Wade can make abortion tolerable, no BS from the Supremes can make conscription tolerable.

BTW, you never HAVE answered: Did YOU serve in the military or is it just your alligator mouth showing up your rabbit a$$ again?

241 posted on 03/28/2002 11:40:18 AM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Fascinating. Libertarians oppose military conscription, mischaracterizing it as slavery, while simultaneously championing the legalization of slavery under the guise of contract.

What a worthless theology.

242 posted on 03/28/2002 11:45:40 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
There's no problem according to contract theory with voluntarily entering the contract, voluntarily following it, or, get this, voluntarily breaking it. That's right. Contract theory is not punitive and promotes efficiency, so the question is, if you decide, voluntarily again, to breach your contract, what is the damage to the other side? And with the court and government enforce it? It sounds to me like in your example you might well owe fifty-thousand plus interest back, but not necessarily more.
243 posted on 03/28/2002 11:52:36 AM PST by Johassen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Fascinating. I don't recall that I have promoted slavery here. I condemned conscription as involuntary servitude, which it clearly is, no matter that the STATE is the one doing it (I guess fedgov as massa is OK with you?).

I did ask you a direct question which you avoided again: Did you serve in the armed forces or are you just some statist jerkoff that likes to force OTHERS into servitude so YOU don't have to go?

244 posted on 03/28/2002 12:03:31 PM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
I don't recall that I have promoted slavery here.

Congratulations on your exceptional conduct.

245 posted on 03/28/2002 12:19:10 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Well, I agree with everything you said, except the draft. Draft for military service really isn't involuntary servitude (except the Crotch; that ought to be completely voluntary, like it used to be). You retain all the rights of American citizenship, except that you can be ordered to place your life in harm's way.

Military service is one of the responsibilities of being a citizen of any nation group, part of the implied compact. You live in great groups for security and protection anyway. Somebody has to fight, and the only way to keep that equatable is to give the governing body the say in acquiring soldiers in time of war.

Whether the feminists like it or not, this is a male responsibility. The matching female responsibility toward security and pretection of the nation is to bear and raise up children to become good citizens. Way I see it, anyhow.

Semper Fi '64 - '68

246 posted on 03/28/2002 12:21:07 PM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
That wasn't what I was doing. What I was defending was contracts. But you knew that.
247 posted on 03/28/2002 12:43:45 PM PST by MadameAxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: MadameAxe
What I was defending was contracts.

Slavery contracts.

248 posted on 03/28/2002 1:35:56 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Fascinating. Libertarians oppose military conscription, mischaracterizing it as slavery, while simultaneously championing the legalization of slavery under the guise of contract.

A fanatics fantasy.
What a worthless twit you are roscoe.

249 posted on 03/28/2002 3:46:44 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
OK, now no distractions:

HAVE YOU SERVED IN THE ARMED FORCES or are you still just blowing smoke???

250 posted on 03/28/2002 6:13:20 PM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-267 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson