By necessity I begin this article by discussing two facets of the U.S. philosophy contained in the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
These two are: Unalienable Rights and Pursuit of Happiness.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
A full discussion on either of these topics would be lengthy; volumes have been written on these subjects. The reason I begin with the preamble to the
Declaration is to highlight the two main facets of freedom. Liberty and the Pusuit of Happiness. The framers of the
Declaration specifically used the word "unalienable" rather than inalienable. The difference between the two is this:
The definition of "unalienable rights," is those rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else - the government, for example,
or another person. Some people refer to these as "natural" or "God-given" rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Certain unalienable
rights, such as a Social Security number, however, are "unalienable" only because the law prohibits reassigning your number to someone else. In contrast,
"inalienable rights" are those rights that can only be transferred with the consent of the person possessing those rights.
Thge Big Question is Always: Are slave contracts legal?
In the strictest sense of the law, no they are not because the Declaraton of Independence states that one's unalienable rights cannot be surrunder, sold or
transferred to another person. This is rather succint and would nullify a contract transferring one's unalienable rights to another person, namely a person
identified in a slave contract as a Master. Recently there have been cases where, while any defense of slavery is simply ignored becuase it is illegal, however
courts have held that certain aspects of the contract can be upheld as a legal contract if for no other reason that the contract shows the intention and the
will of the parties.
However, the problem with a slave contract is its wording. If the word "slave" is used in a written agreement between two people that clearly transfers one's
unalienable rights to another, the contract is void or considered "unconscionable" as well. In the past, presentaton of a slave contract was considered inadmissable
in court due to its nature of being "against the law".
Certain Libertarians throughout history have made the claim that one has self-ownership; and what you own, you have a right to sell or dispose of as you please. The
giving of oneself is different than selling oneself. Anyone can give themselves; their servicesl; their talents freely without going against the philosophy of the
Declaration of Independence.
|