Metapolitics

Section I of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

This Amendment was adopted in 1865, following the War Between the States.

As Constitutional Amendments go, it is a good one, and well worth enforcing. But, as with all legal language, one must pay as much attention to what is not said, as to what is said.

The amendment explicitly forbids the institution of slavery and "involuntary servitude" (with one notable exception) but omits any mention of voluntary servitude. But, as Etienne de la Boetie noted in his woefully neglected The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude: "Liberty is the only joy upon which men do not seem to insist; for surely if they really wanted it they would receive it" (composed sometime between 1548-1553; the translator of my edition is not named but I suspect it was Harry Kurz, whose translation was published in 1942 by Columbia University Press--ironically, in support of the United States' entry into the Second World War).

It would seem that the Constitutional Amendment that might be construed to protect the right of U.S. citizens to refuse voluntary servitude is the Ninth Amendment--hence the title of this blog.

Now, you may be asking yourself, "Why would any government bother to craft a law that would prohibit voluntary servitude? No one becomes a slave willingly!"

Not so, says la Boetie. Men and women become willing slaves for many reasons, not least of which is the acquisition of wealth. Indeed, throughout his treatise, la Boetie provides examples (from Biblical and Classical sources) of the voluntary surrender of liberty in exchange for what inevitably ends up to be a short term gain:

Whether we examine ancient history or simply the times in which we live, we shall see clearly how great is the number of those who, having by shameful means won the ear of princes--who either profit from their villainies or take advantage of their naivete--were in the end reduced to nothing by these very princes; and although at first such servitors were met by a ready willingness to promote their interests, they later found an equally obvious inconstancy which brought them to ruin.

And who, frankly, can blame such princes for their behavior? For he who makes it clear that his dignity has a price has, in effect, hung a "for sale" sign about his own neck. He is now, by his own admission, a mere commodity--merchandise--and, in the end, treated as such.

Governments, in fact, depend upon vast populations willing to prostitute themselves in this way. No government can be expected to take the steps necessary to discourage or prevent such a disposition in the overwhelming majority of its constituents: to do so would be suicidal--for the government, not for its people.

This basic principle applies to all governments everywhere--including the representative form of government enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. For even in a situation where expediency warrants the appointment of a representative to act on one's behalf, a degree of control over one's destiny has been relinquished and the door has been opened to abuse.