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]

Since when has the Constitution and bill of rights guaranteed your rights? How about the second amendment. How many places have outlawed that section. How about the first amendment? How many places has free speech or the free practice of religion been outlawed? And how is it you are guaranteed the right to life when you may be killed before you are even born?  

You have no guarantees in mans law and no rights but from God.  Where is your right to pursue  happiness if it is your belief that it makes you happy to violate others.  Indeed God wanted us to have governance on earth that reflects his goodness.  That reflects his goodness is the key to it all.  The major problem is that without laws that reflect his goodness there is no Freedom. No Justice, No American way.  

The Libertarians do not support laws that reflect his goodness.  They support laws geared towards self satisfaction and gratification wholly devoid of His Goodness.  So if you do indeed support Aquinas' then there is no way you can support the Libertarians.

[OWK]

voluntary slavery

Voluntary slavery is an oxymoron.

Slavery is by definition involuntary.

[Ken H]

I did not indicate that it "should be okay" to enforce a slave contract. I do not think it is nor should it be okay

How in the world did you read that into my post??

If you want to voluntarily be someone's personal slave, be my guest. I won't try to stop you.

I won't even try to talk you out of it.

[Roscoe]

Indentured servitude was initially entered into voluntarily. Indentured servitude is a form of slavery prohibited by the 13th Amendment of our Constitition.

Your lame attempt at rebuttal failed.

[OWK]

So individuals may not enter into contract, whereby their labor is committed for a pre-specified period of time?

[Roscoe]

So individuals may not enter into contract, whereby their labor is committed for a pre-specified period of time?

If they walk off the job, their master can't hunt them down and drag them back chains.

That would be unconstitutional.

Slavery is involuntary.

And therefore, someone who sells themself into slavery can be held against their will if they change their mind, and their continued involuntary servitude is voluntary.

Doublethink.

[Sam's Army]

Why does this sound like one of the "Letters to Penthouse..."?

[OWK]

So what you're saying then, is that if someone enters into a contract whereby they committ their labor for a pre-specified period of time, and they later decide they just don't feel like honoring that committment, then the other party to the contract is just plain screwed.

Strange notion of contracts you have there Roscoe.

[Roscoe]

Because there isn't an answer?

[Virginia-American]

they would outlaw the discouragement of entering into the slavery of drug addiction

Just the gov't 'discouragement'. (Which more often than not is based on lies and half-truths) The Constitution has never been amended to allow the gov't freedom of speech.

[Roscoe]

So what you're saying then, is that if someone enters into a contract whereby they committ their labor for a pre-specified period of time, and they later decide they just don't feel like honoring that committment, then the other party to the contract is just plain screwed.

If being limited to civil remedies, and not being able to hunt down, beat and chain a runaway employee up makes you feel "screwed."

[Virginia-American]

If the Libertarians come to power they will enact laws which will unleash ...

I thought they simply advocated repealing some laws passed in the last 60-70 years.

[OWK]

If being limited to civil remedies, and not being able to hunt down, beat and chain a runaway employee up makes you feel "screwed."

And what if the individual ultimately resists your civil remedies Roscoe?

What if he refuses to participate?

Won't he be hunted down and chained by the state?

[Khepera]

Maybe you should read their platform. It is on their website.

[Roscoe]

A poor Thai girl sells herself to a pimp to settle her family's debts. He brings her to this country to work off the money as a captive in a brothel. The kind of thing that is in the news all the time.

Would you hold that the pimp is acting within his rights? Should she be required to remain captive till the debt is settled? If she runs away, how much force should the pimp be able to use recapturing her?

[Roscoe]

Won't he be hunted down and chained by the state?

I've never heard of an employee being returned to employer in chains by the state. Gotta cite?

[The Green Goblin]

Libertarians would contend that freedom includes the "right" to own slaves, though the operation of peonage or indentured servitude.

Since slavery is defined as involuntary servitude, you have no argument to make against voluntary contracts.

[OWK]

I've never heard of an employee being returned to employer in chains by the state.

You've never heard of an individual who contracted his labor or his goods, being encarcerated by the state for failing to abide by the terms of the contract?

If not, I'd say your experience is somewhat limited in this regard.

[The Green Goblin]

Too bad the Libertarians choose to worship Thomas Jefferson instead of God. Thomas Jefferson is irrelevant. It is God who holds the answer to all our problems

Yes, and Islam is a religion of peace...

[A CA Guy]

I sure hope you are not linking Radical Islam to the God most of us in the the US of A worship? That would be sick!

Maybe your post is misleading unintentionally?