It seems to me that, while the 13th amendment has ended legal slavery in the private sector, such practices as mandatory school attendance for minors, jury duty, and military draft show that the government feels free to ignore it. I suppose one could make a case that as the government does not directly benefit from the labor of schoolchildren, this is not slavery. However, I can’t think of any explanation for jury duty or the draft other than “they’re neccessary, so we can make an exception”. They are clearly services, and they are clearly involuntary.
I suppose if you want to define “slavery” as compelling anyone to do anything then, yes, we are all poor slaves. But, if you have any sort of reasonable realistic definition of slavery, then this is not the case.
First, for kids in school, it has always been recognized that kids don’t have as complete freedom as the rest of us. I think if you have ever tried to deal with the logic of a 4-year old (or a 13-year old) for that matter, you will think that’s a good thing too. As a society, we have decided that there are positive externalities associated with an educated populous…In fact, it is basically a pre-requisite for a democracy.
As for the other two, these can be justified in terms of very necessary things people must do for our society to function. (Not that I am necessarily in favor of the draft; but I don’t think a 13th Amendment argument against it will get very far!) And, in both you get some compensation. (For jury duty, I believe the compensation only occurs if your employer doesn’t provide time off with pay.)
P.S.—I am happy to hear that you are so happy with your job in the private sector, but I assume there are some that would find their jobs to be not much better than slavery. And, although they may technically have a choice in the way that just seems to make all the libertarian-types feel warm and cuddly inside, I don’t think this “choice” is much of a choice for some people.
Yes, but I hardly think that the right not to be enslaved is a right reserved to adults.
So the 13th amendment only applies to “logical” people?
We have also decided that there are positive externalities to phones. That doesn’t mean we force everyone to have a phone.
The people that outlawed literacy test for voters obviously didn’t think so.
It is very necessary for me to have food. That doesn’t give me the right to force people to bring me food (especially if I’ve signed a contract specifically barring me from doing so).
I can’t believe you’re comparing slavery to jury duty and compulsory school attendence.
Kids going to school are not being ‘enslaved’. They are being educated. They are receiving a valuable and expensive service, free of charge to them personally, that they will require later in life.
Also, you can get out of school. Your parents can opt to home-school you. They can choose to put you in different schools. You can be expelled from school.
You can get out of jury duty with a verifiable claim of hardship, or by simply not registering to vote. You can be excluded from jury duty for a varity of reasons.
You can get out of the military by claiming conscientous objector status, or simply refuse to serve and face the jail time.
You are considered a citizen of state, not the property of the state.
“Slavery” is not defined by the Constitution, but it seems that a fairly common definition would include doing work for no pay which profits someone else. I am at loss to understand how the work being done by students at school (certainly with no pay) provides a profit for someone else.
You would have a stronger argument if teachers sold the kids art work or math papers or writing papers for personal profit. I can’t imagine there’d be much market for that stuff for second graders, say, other than the kids parents.
If you are going to describe “slavery” as being told what you can do or cannot do, then I suppose the laws requiring you to stop at red lights, or the laws forbidding you from murdering your ex-spouse, are also “slavery”, eh? Try using the 13th Amendment as a defense against your next traffic ticket, and see how amusing the judge finds it.
Slavery, by any common definition, entails ownership of another individual. As such, the only compensation they are given in just enough to keep them alive and productive.
Thus, the draft, as shitty as it is, isn’t slavery. Neither is employment of any kind.
However, as I argued in another thread, if we extend the definition of slavery just an itty bit to include choice in the matter, then everyone is a slave to everyone else. For example, I have to work. Oh, I might be able to choose which employer, and even choose a few different occupations, but in the end I have to work for someone. In the end, I have no choice and must get a job with money as compensation.
Its a fine line between slavery and coexistence.
However, I would tend to agree about the schoolchildren dealie. We’ve moved child labor (which was “good for us” because they brought in money for the home) to child education (which is “good for us” because they’re smarter and will continue to promote technology). However, education, unlike its predecessor child labor, is mandated by the government; i.e.- the government is telling us what to do with our children. Period. That they give us many other liberties doesn’t change the simple fact that big bro is all over us like flies on shit. 
CK, the government obviously profits from child education. The idea is that they will learn something (in public schools? Surely you jest aynrandlover!), go get a job, make good money, and pay the government taxes.
Just because Jefferson may have treated his slaves well doesn’t make them free.
<< CK, the government obviously profits from child education. The idea is that they will learn something (in public schools? Surely you jest aynrandlover!), go get a job, make good money, and pay the government taxes. >>
Sigh. I suppose I should have said “direct profits”.
Otherwise, I argue that my child going to school provides increased government taxes which provides improved roads upon which YOU, aynrandlover, drive… hence YOU have violated the 13th amendment by profiting from the enslavement of my child. Pfui.
School and slavery just don’t intersect. You are free to leave the country if you don’t want to educate your children; a slave is not free to leave her/his owner. You are able to put your children in private school if you don’t like public school; a slave is not free to elect which field he/she picks cotton in.
Whole thing is silly.
Actually, there is a direct profit involved – the school earns money based on the attendence of the students. Every time a student is absent, the school loses money for that day.
A few years ago, I had migraine headaches almost every day due to something in the air at the school (two teachers and a student had already had to leave that school for the same reason…weird). Eventually I ended up in the hospital after having had a really bad one for over 48 hours. The counselor called my parents in the meantime, and suggested having a teacher come to my house and give me the work twice a week. That’s how I spent the rest of the year. The reason the counselor gave besides the health issue was that the school lost money every time I was absent.
I don’t think school kids are slaves, but people are directly profiting over their attending school. I thought it was pretty weird when I found out about that, myself.
We’re almost there C K. Time to get technical, philosophical, and downright silly 
>> Direct profits
…eh? No one directly profits from slavery.
>>Roads I drive on
…eh? I pay for those too! But we’re not talking about what I get out of it…I’m not the one forcing them to go to school. Its what the government gets out of it, namely, more profits (tax money–as close as the government ever comes to profit)
>>Large-scale vs small scale
School and slavery don’t intersect when you fail to make a good analogy. Choosing which school isn’t the issue (slaves, for your cotton pickin’ example, can choose which part of the field they want to work on) its that there must be a school. Not only that, children don’t choose the schools anyway…either the government does or the parent does. Sounds like two differnt owners fighting for control of a slave. Who is the highest bidder?
Now, own: to have or hold as property. Property: in re to ownership, something to which a person has a legal title.
Hmmm. Pondering on these definitions and considering the effect we as parents have on our children, as well as the government’s effect on the children, I’d say they are downright owned. The choices they can make are largely insignificant (like choosing which part of the field to work on). Looking up the definition of slave it still seems to fit. Oh, we don’t make them work in physical trades (except for chores, of course 
) but none-the-less I find this intriguing. They are short-term (18 yr) slaves. Indeed.
The people that outlawed literacy test for voters obviously didn’t think so.**
[/QUOTE]
I think that education is a pre-requisite is for a functional, meaningful democracy. I don’t believe what we are seeing in the US is either. Sure it’s legal, but c’mon, 50% participation!!?!
Work, however, may be considered involuntary servitude under the 13th. As I recollect (keep in mind I slept through most of my law class), a contract for labor can be invalidated by the worker (that is, you can quit anytime), but there may be punitive measures in the contract for doing so. In short, you can not refuse to work and be sued for breech of contract, due to the thirteenth. Of course, there may be some finer points that escape me; I’m not a lawyer.
As for the OP, I think the usual justification for compulsory military service being constitutional is Art 1, Sec. 8. That section, among other things, authorizes congress “To raise and support Armies.”
As for it’s morality or “rightness:” Myself I am a draft-dodging, Nader-voting, tree-hugging, Commie bastard, and I say it is wrong. My first act of civil disobedience: ignore the Selective Service (SS) registration letters.
I take the position that I would like to be responsible for my own actions. That is, I have to justify any action I take to myself. Consequently, I can not participate in a system which requires, or potentially could require me to do things that I could not justify to myself.
If I can find one example of an unjust or immoral war in history, I have one reason not to register for the selective service. And one is all I need.
Some commie you’ll make, what with civil disobedience. Serve the State, Comrade!
Sheesh.
ARL:
**No one directly profits from slavery.
[/quote]
Slave traders do. Since we’re being anal.
Short:
Or one could work within the system, and register with Selective Service as a CO. But I’m sure it’s much more . . . subversive to simply ignore it.
Damn vB code.
Slave owners don’t directly profit from owning slaves. Its an indirect thing. Like owning an automated machine versus manual labor. There is profit(potentially), but only in the end(if realized). There is no, “I own/bought” this slave which leads, as a next direct step, to “I made a profit.” If you want to be anal about it
In another regard, if we are talking not about my “anal” direct profit, slaves themselves profit from other slaves. Directly. Less work for them for the same amount of substinance, eh?
[slight hijack]
I often see people mistake not having a viable alternative for not having a choice. The above quote is a classic example. You do have a choice. You can choose note to work. Yes, your bills would go unpaid, you’d be homeless and you’d have no money but there is a choice.
[/slight hijack]
The Supreme Court ruled on a 13th Amendment argument against mandatory conscription in the 1916 case of Butler v. Perry.
The relevant section states about the 13th Amendment
A clarification: since the phrase “slavery and involuntary servitude” is rather cumbersome to use, and since “slavery” is such a vague term anyway, I am using the term “slavery” to refer to slavery and involuntary servitude. I though that that was clear in my OP, but I guess it wasn’t. So from now in this thread, when you see me using the word “slavery”, take it to mean “slavery and involuntary servitude”.
Even taking this miscommunication into account, I am surprised by the ridiculousness of the arguments presented. Are you people so intellectually dishonest that you are not willing to accept what is obvious? Jury duty and military service are services. I have seen no one dispute this. Jury duty and military service are involuntary. I have seen no one dispute this. Yet people say that they do not violate the 13th amendment. How can that be?
I’m not comparing them. I’m saying that the latter is subset of the former, with the possible exception of school.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Just because you can choose between different types of slavery doesn’t make it not slavery.
Yes, in which case you have to go to a remedial school.
It is possible, but not guaranteed.
In other words, by giving up a constitutionally protected right. I’m sorry, but civil rights aren’t a “choose one of the above” proposition. You don’t get some of your rights, you get all.
Again, these are possible, but they aren’t guaranteed. I don’t like having to petition to keep my civil rights. They’re my rights, regardless of what some judge thinks. And even if you can convince the authorities to give you a CO exemption, what happens? You get assigned to a civilian job. In other words, you’re enslaved.
And slaves can get out of work by refusing to work and being beaten to death. Freedom means being free without having to face any punishment. What if the government put people that criticized the government in jail? Would you say “Oh, that’s okay, people can still criticize the government. They just have to face the consequences afterwards”?
C K Dexter Haven
Do you really think that slaves are never paid for their labor? If so, you are very poorly informed. If I were to force at gunpoint a woman to have sex with me, and
I paid her afterwards, would it not be rape?
Why are you going to the trouble to argue a point which I have already conceded? Is your position really so weak that you must show off by repeating what I have already said?
And if you are going to describe the Nazis as “wonderful human beings that did the world a great favor”, then I suppose you wouldn’t object to slavery anyway, would you?
Well gee, that certainly was an impressive attack. The floor is just covered with straw, and the burlap sack is hardly recognizable. However, I would think that as Administrator, you would have noticed that this is the Great Debates forum, not the Great Thrashing of Straw Men forum.
aynrandlover
Keeping in mind my clarification, it is clear that slavery does not require ownership.
There is a big difference between constraints imposed by the world and constraints imposed by the government. If you have to join the military because that’s the only job you can get, that’s not necessarily slavery. If you have to join the military because the government forces you to, that’s slavery.
C K Dexter Haven:
Slavery is enslaving a person, not simply benefitting from enslavement. If benefitting from something were to make one guilty of something, then everyone conceived during a rape would be a rapist, doctors who work on gunshot wounds would be attempted murderers, and cops would be guilty of pretty much every crime.
Short:
Since the amendment supersedes the original constitution, that quote is irrelevant.
BobT, quoting the USSC:
Well, if the services under consideration are involuntary servitude, then it does introduce a novel doctrine. So the claim that they are not unconstitutional rests on the claim that the 13th amendment intoduces no new doctrine, and the claim that the 13th amendment intoduces no new doctrine rests on the claim that they are not unconstitutional. Circular reasoning.
“Owe”? Where does the government get off saying I “owe” them these things? And what, exactly, is the difference between “owing” labor, and being a slave?
In other words, as predicted in my OP, the argument is “they’re neccessary, so we can make an exception”. Sorry, but you don’t get to ignore a contract just because it’s inconvenient.
How about clarifying “the only job you can get” above?
As it is, nobody’s drafted into the military in the United States at the moment. Thus, it’s completely voluntary. Also, slavery constitutes, by most definitions, one becoming the property of another. Members of the military are not, I repeat: are not, the property of the government. They still have constitutional rights and other guarantees of law, most notably of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as passed by Congress and signed into law by the President (all civilians, btw).
Now, it’s actually amusing to me to see someone comparing school attendance as servitude. I always saw it as a benefit provided by the government. But maybe that’s just me.
Ha, maybe you haven’t been in public schools lately 
Joke.
Benefit? Its so good they need to force you to go? Like starving slaves didn’t “benefit” from food allotments.
Like I said, just because Jefferson treated his slaves well doesn’t make them free.