Do you have any reason to believe that amendment was ever intended to cover things like mandatory jury duty? Or are you advocating for reading the text verbatim with zero consideration of the context or history? That kind of reading impacts a lot more than this, and not entirely in a good way.
I think there are much better argument for mandatory jury duty, like the fact that it's an inherent and explicit part of the preexisting Constitution, and that was not explicitly repealed nor (as far as I know) considered.
But the Court chose not to use those arguments, perhaps because they are less absolute and don't apply as cleanly to the draft.
Personally, I think that jury duty as it is today (no real pay, sometimes very long trials, "hardship" completely at the discretion of the judge) is actually a substantive violation of the principles of liberty that the 13th Amendment (along with the rest of the Constitution, notably the 5th Amendment) was meant to protect; (though I myself would likely enjoy actually being on a jury, and am fortunate that I can afford it/my work would likely pay).
And I don't think it would've been crazy to require an Amendment to institute a compulsory military draft, or better yet interpret the 13th Amendment to allow the draft (and jury duty) on narrower grounds but use it to better protect soldiers against various abuses inherent in the current military power structure and lack of exit option.
I do think that mandatory road duty is about as direct a violation of the purpose of the 13th Amendment as anything else the state could do. I think the (explicit) argument that the takings and due process clauses protect your money but not your labor is patently ridiculous.
> I do think that mandatory road duty is about as direct a violation of the purpose of the 13th Amendment as anything else the state could do.
Let me make sure I'm getting this right. You're making a serious claim that if the state required you to, say, clean the road by your house every morning, you'd feel like your experience would rival those of 19th-century slaves? You genuinely think that was the kind of thing the amendment was written for and do not see a meaningful distinction between the two?
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Obviously the experience wouldn't rival one of a 19th century slave and nobody is making that claim. However, forced labor for no compensation is slavery, by definition.
> Obviously the experience wouldn't rival one of a 19th century slave and nobody is making that claim.
This was literally the comment:
>> I do think that mandatory road duty is about as direct a violation of the purpose of the 13th Amendment as anything else the state could do.
The state could bring back 19th-century-style slavery, too. Wouldn't that be a more direct violation of the purpose of the amendment? Because eliminating that sort of thing was kinda the purpose of the amendment, no? The purpose of the amendment clearly wasn't to prevent the government from requiring you to maintain the road around your home... right?
This isn't my interpretation, I'm reading what you guys are writing as-is. You're trying to add more context and explanation that wasn't there, weakening (and frankly contradicting) their argument.
It's especially ironic given you're both simultaneously trying to read the amendment so blindly and disregarding the context or purpose (the original purpose emphatically was not to prevent you from having to do a bit of upkeep around your neighborhood), yet somehow you don't like it when your own writing is read literally?
Systematic widespread slavery is obviously different from using the threat or application of violence to compel unpaid labor in smaller-scale scenarios, but both are de facto slavery and both are direct violations of the amendment. If you wanna argue that there is a concept of a "lesser violation" and that it makes some forms of slavery OK, be my guest but even children don't buy arguments like that.
It's like trying to argue that a little murder is fine because really, the laws are set up to prevent mass murder.
> Systematic widespread slavery is obviously different from using the threat or application of violence to compel unpaid labor in smaller-scale scenarios,
Eh? Violence? For refusing mandatory upkeep around your home and neighborhood? Are you writing this from North Korea or something? How is fining you such a foreign concept where you live that your government has to resort to violence to get you to do some upkeep as a homeowner?
> but both are de facto slavery and both are direct violations of the amendment. If you wanna argue that there is a concept of a "lesser violation" and that it makes some forms of slavery OK, be my guest but even children don't buy arguments like that.
This was the "strongest plausible interpretation" of what I've been saying this whole time?
Children buy perfectly well the idea that requiring homeowners to do some upkeep around them is not even remotely "slavery". Just like how they understand perfectly well that making them clean their rooms is not "slavery" either. They understand it's not only ridiculous, but outright insulting to human dignity to suggest that these are comparable to slavery. Adults on HN are the ones who somehow struggle with this, not children.
> Eh? Violence? For refusing mandatory upkeep around your home and neighborhood? Are you writing this from North Korea or something? How is fining you such a foreign concept where you live that your government has to resort to violence to get you to do some upkeep as a homeowner?
What happens when you don't pay the fine? What happens when you resist the armed men at your door?
> outright insulting to human dignity to suggest that these are comparable to slavery
What's outright insulting to human dignity is authoritarians justifying slavery on the basis of "other forms are worse".
Garnish your wages? Freeze your bank account? Put a lien on your house? I don't know, I've never been blessed with the urge to die on this hill. They sure as heck have a million options besides injuring you, and they won't injure you unless you do something other than merely refusing labor or payment. "He didn't pay the fine, let's go beat him up till he does" is not how things work in my part of the world.
Ah yes, our wonderful governments won't beat us up if we don't comply, they'll just take our possessions and money so we don't have food, shelter, transportation, or the capacity to generate income. Totally non-violent.
"political power flows from the barrel of a gun" - Mao
