Skip to comments.Old Hoosier Apologizes to Libertarians
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.
BTW, you never HAVE answered: Did YOU serve in the military or is it just your alligator mouth showing up your rabbit a$$ again?
What a worthless theology.
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?
Congratulations on your exceptional conduct.
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
A fanatics fantasy.
What a worthless twit you are roscoe.
HAVE YOU SERVED IN THE ARMED FORCES or are you still just blowing smoke???
I went to Parris Island in '67 and got to the SE Asian Wargames in '69... did you get to participate?
On the issue of the Constitution, I agree it gives it's power to the Congress, Senate and all that. I also agree that in many cases the way it is interpreted seems to suggests that the Courts are all full of Yoga Masters!
But the main area that you don't like that I think is a true fact is that if they didn't interpret the Constitution with current law, you'd have to go with adding on amendments. If you do that you would have a Constitution with amendments that would make it look like the tax code law books (LARGE LOADED AND CONFUSING)! In future years I could see where you would easily have more than 13,000 amendments if the current system didn't exist.
That in my opinion would reduce the original Constitution to just a nice old piece of history as originally written. And NONE of those in Congress wanted that, so we have what we have. (FROM WHAT I HAVE READ SO FAR)!
If you don't like the current way of doing it you would get the 13,000 amendment method. That would be far more out of control and was why the current way won out from what I read. I am a logical guy and it makes sense to me over the alternatives.
Can you come up with a third way that would work better without being sarcastic for real? Right now we have two choices:
#1 current system.
#2 thousands of amendments (confusing).
#3 your sincere heart felt better ideas?
You have to realize there is no way to just go back to the original without amendments because we simply do no live in the 1700s any more. The idea of amendments up the kazoo just isn't efficient. I don't work for the Government at all, but I can't think of an easy answer to this.
PS: Please next time leave your ass out this and use your gray matter upstairs.
Best wishes to you and may you and your family have a wonderful Easter. God Bless!
So you would have preferred that instead of the way we do stuff in this country now you would have rather had a couple of thousand amendments added to the Constitution.
Fine, a large majority did not agree with you and thought the best way to keep the reverence of the original and yet deal with today was to do what they do now.
Without getting flippant about it, please think about it and give your preferred method for dealing with the Constitution as we move into the future of our tomorrows.
I'm not being sarcastic when I say you would have to be dreaming if you think they would just go with your interpretation of the original and let every SIN run wild in the name of freedom. If they could not use their laws as they do now they would simply patch new amendments before they end their current method. IMO
Happy Easter to you and your family David.
God Bess You All In This Holiday Season and every other day as well.
The draftee would be laboring for the good of himself, his family and nation, not for the personal gratification of another individual. Service for men is a duty. I'll definitely grant you that a nation that doesn't inspire volunteers has a questionable right to exist. But once you get caught up in the protection racket of a nation of people, the only way out of being impressed to defend it seems to be to leave it. Philosophically, that is.
Was in jungles until late '67. Got out in '68. Grunt.
Gotta go. I'm sure, however, that somebody, somewhere, is breathlessly awaiting your next authoritative sound bite denouncing the eeeeeevil Libertarians.
Indentured servitude was a form of slavery entered into by an initially voluntary act, blue faces not withstanding.
The Constitution created Congress. Without the Constitution there would be no Congress. And all that.
But the main area that you don't like that I think is a true fact is that if they didn't interpret the Constitution with current law, you'd have to go with adding on amendments.
The Constitution controls the law that can be passed. If the interpretation of a law is not consistant with the Constitution, it's unconstitutional.
If you do that you would have a Constitution with amendments that would make it look like the tax code law books (LARGE LOADED AND CONFUSING)! In future years I could see where you would easily have more than 13,000 amendments if the current system didn't exist.
Methinks you joust with phantoms. In 180 years there have been 26 amendments made, and 10 of them were made in one swoop, so you could really say that 16 amendments have been made in 180 years. To give you the benefit of the doubt, we'll use the 26 instead of the 16. That means that it would take 90,000 years to get to 13,000 amendments.
I have to admit I don't understand most of what you said. We have a Constitution at the federal level and one each at the state level. These constitutions limit the making, execution of and judging the application of, laws. Since the people of the nation brought the government that exercises these powers into being, only they, not the government creature they created, can change it.
The government can propose changes, but the people (within the states) must ratify. The only alternate way of changing any constitution would be to have government officials do it, therby enabling created creatures the power to alter their own creation.
Please clarify what you want. I haven't been able to make it out. What I've read is incoherent. Are you saying that the Supreme Court, another creature created by the people, should make de facto changes to the Constitution? So that it can change with the "times"?
If that is your remedy, I would say that the Constitution and constitutions are to govern the behavior of people who administrate the laws in America. The "changes" in the "times" are only measured by technology social theories. People and their behavior has not changed no matter what the advances in technology or social theory.
If they voluntarily agreed to be an indentured servant for a certain amount of money, for a certain amount of time, but then were not let go, that would be fraud, because the indenturer didn't live up to his end of the contract.
It's hard for me to imagine how awful people's lives must have been back then that they would do such a thing as sell themselves into servitude, but they must have thought it a better deal than whatever would have happened to them (or perhaps, their families) otherwise. They're the ultimate example of people trading liberty for security.