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