View Single Post
Old 09-04-2019, 06:40 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,029
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Indentured servitude can be allowed under the Thirteenth Amendment, as long as it's voluntary. If you sign a contract with someone that says that they'll do something for you now, in exchange for a certain amount of labor from you in the future, that's perfectly valid. Key, though, is that you agreed to it.
Cite? If you break such a contract, the other party can sue for damages. But they can't sue for forcing you to uphold your end of the contract by doing whatever work you agreed to do.

So, while you could agree to such a thing, you can't be held to the terms of it. And, presumably, someone agreeing to an indentured service would "judgment proof" in the sense of having no assets. So such a contract is, while maybe technically allowed, effectively moot.

Originally Posted by Little Nemo
This is a case where I'll have to go with the originalists. It think it's clear that the people who wrote and enacted the Thirteenth Amendment in 1864 and 1865 meant slavery when they wrote involuntary servitude.
There are two questions here. The answer to "is conscription illegal in the US because it's slavery" is clearly no. No legal wiggle-room here. And the UN declaration on human rights also doesn't cover it.

Is military conscription morally slavery? I'd say that it is.